Religion Crossing the Line… Further

Filed under: Politics, Science — one July 20, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

It's been a constant battle for rational people in states with heavily religious populations to keep creationism, in all its many cleverly disguised forms, out of our children's science classes — at least in Public Schools — but now for what might be the first time we see the religious zealots' next step once they taste success: move from the Science classroom to the History classroom.

Apparently religious activists in Texas succeeded in putting creationism into the science classroom and are now pushing to put Christianity into History class. I know I shouldn't be surprised but I guess I was so focused on their attempts to supplant science with science fiction that I never stopped to consider that once they'd managed to teach our kids they should consider biblical truths to be equal to or better than observable truths that can be proven, they would of course move on to shoving their religious education into other aspects of public schooling which are also tainted by too much accuracy and/or reality.

I want to say I don't have a problem with religion, because of course there are plenty of things people can point to (truthfully) where religion has done worlds of good. There are a vast majority of religious people who take their religion seriously and simultaneously have nothing but respect and tolerance (the good kind, not the veiled disgust kind) for people of other faiths, as well as understanding and respect for science. Yet, it seems an unavoidable conclusion to me that most religions encourage rigid thinking and adherence to their particular dogma, which inevitably brings many of their most devoted followers into direct conflict with people who are busy trying to learn verifiable truths about our universe and existence through experimentation and observation.

Ultimately, at least where conflict exists science logically must trump religion because different faiths have many completely different religious truths, but ultimately science offers the only truths people of all faiths can observe, understand and confirm for themselves. This is certainly not to suggest science has all the answers — science doesn't offer moral guidance, for one thing. Ultimately science really only intrudes on one area of traditionally (through the dark ages) religious turf: explaining how our world works.

The bottom line though, is that religious folks who can't tolerate this partial intrusion on their doctrine by things we've learned through science are working hard to undermine our public education system and ultimately make our nation's children dumber and even more ill-equipped — not just to properly understand the universe in which they live but from a pragmatic perspective simply to compete in today's global economy against countries that already have educational systems far superior to our own.

To those uber-religious I would simply say this: Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit — get over it. In the biblical story of the Garden of Eden the choice which confronts our species is knowlege or ignorance. Our "original sin" in tasting the fruit of the tree of knowlege of good and evil was to grant ourselves a level of understanding above any of God's other creatures. It's done, we have that ability now and to shove your head in the sand and wave your bible insisting that it's more true than things we can observe and understand for ourselves isn't going to atone for the sin, it isn't going to return man to Eden. In short, as mothers of all faiths and nationalities have said for time immemorial, God gave you a brain — use it!

…because what this agenda is doing to our educational system is illogical, immoral, harmful, dangerous and just downright stupid — which is exactly what future generations of Americans will be if we turn our educational system back 400 years to before Galileo was imprisoned for pointing out the earth was not in fact the center of the universe which all heavenly bodies revolved around.

Another way to put it is simply this: If you believe the sun revolves around the earth, as does Jupiter, all of Jupiter's moons, and everything in the whole of existence, then you're clearly very dumb but at least I would respect your desire to change our educational system. On the other hand, if you don't believe any of that but you're still trying to supplant other scientific education with teachings more consistent with your bible then you obviously haven't learned anything from history and are doomed to repeat it, making your sin of stupidity far worse than the first group. Of course this new push for religion in history classes will make your children even more doomed-to-repeat-ier — so, cheers! 


Solar Power Cause For Environmental Concern: Only in America

Filed under: Politics, Science, Technology — one June 30, 2008 @ 10:49 am
 
I was flabbergasted when I read this article over the weekend. Apparently the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is holding up the construction of new solar power stations because they feel it's necessary to evaluate the possible environmental damage.  Of putting solar panels in open fields.  In the middle of an oil crisis.
 
Only in America!
 
This either had "Coal Lobby" written all over it or I've just completely underestimated how closely the level of bureaucracy in this country has come to resemble the government in Terry Gilliam's film Brazil.
 
It is unbelievable to me that out of all the projects that are going forward, somehow putting solar panels in the middle of an open field was considered a potential environmental threat that needed to be halted until further study could be done.  It is unconscionable that this happened now of all times.  The most astounding (and damning) thing is that the alternatives to solar power, predominantly coal and oil, are some of the most pollutant technologies in existence and aren't just damaging their local environments but potentially the global balance of so-called greenhouse gasses.
 
…but yet those companies will retain their dominance for a few more years at least thanks to this decision.  I'm disgusted.

The Jesus Conspiracy

Filed under: Science — one March 19, 2008 @ 12:57 am
In my intellectual travels I came across an interesting theory. A German team has put together a book called "The Jesus Conspiracy" which talks about the Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial shroud of Jesus. It makes a few interesting points and puts forth some very outrageous, yet seemingly well-supported hypotheses.
 
First let's take a brief look at the controversy surrounding the shroud. The New Testament includes references to Jesus being wrapped in linens but the first time history recorded the existence of this particular shroud (and all of it's unique markings) was in the 14th century. Skeptics immediately postulate that it's likely a forgery, for how could something of this value be forgotten and unknown for over a thousand years?
 
It doesn't help that a Bishop wrote to the Pope, not long after the shroud first came to Europe (from a Frenchman recently returned from the Crusades) that the artist responsible for the forgery had been captured and confessed, or that churches at the time were expected to maintain their own collection of "relics" once they were around for a fair amount of time.
 
Believers put the Bishop's letter off to political envy within the Catholic Church and point to many key details about the images on the shroud itself, not the least of which is apparent blood spatter that matches with current forensic knowledge — knowledge that was not apparent in any form during the middle ages, much less used in art or artistic forgeries.
 
But the Skeptics felt vindicated in the late 1980's when the shroud was carbon dated to around the year 1300, plus or minus a few decades. At first the believers were shocked, but then someone noticed that there was an obscure work of art reliably dated nearly 200 years earlier that clearly showed the shroud, along with several key details about it (including the uncommon weave form and an odd, L-shaped pattern of holes) — this clearly doesn't jive with the radio carbon dating.
 
So the believers insisted that the carbon dating must be wrong. Some claimed that the method itself was flawed, which is frankly laughable because it is such a well-tested and proven method of dating organic material. Others suggested that the sample cut from the shroud was actually additional material that was added to the original during the middle ages with a weave so fine that the point of integration was invisible. This too seemed a bit farfetched.
 
Some claimed that the samples sent to the labs were contaminated with more modern materials, ruining the dating. Unfortunately for them, this seems highly unlikely. The people who handled the samples are experts in their fields who know what they're about. We can presume, with high assurance, that the samples and the procedures were all handled properly — but the biggest problem with this is that three separate samples were sent to three separate labs and they all came back with identical results. It would be virtually impossible for three individual samples to be contaminated so specifically, and so indentically.
 
But science is about finding theories that fit all the facts, and while the believers couldn't discredit the carbon dating, the skeptics couldn't really explain how a forger could have created this finished product. But there is a theory that seems to fit all of the facts, and neither group seems to like it one bit.
 
The German team who wrote "The Jesus Conspiracy" note that the entire procedure of clipping the fragments from the shroud for scientific analysis was carefully videotaped, but for some reason when the samples were put in containers to be sent to the labs the cameras stopped rolling. The documentarians say this was to protect the integrity of the experiment so the labs couldn't tell the true shroud sample from the control sample, but the Germans weren't buying this because the shroud samples were never unraveled and had an unmistakable herringbone weave.
 
Because they found the gap in the video evidence suspicious they analyzed photographs of the lab samples and according to their experts the weave of the samples the labs analyzed do not match the shroud itself. They propose that someone switched the samples of the shroud with actual fabric from the middle-ages because the Church was afraid what it might mean if the shroud was proven authentic.
 
Now, I'm no expert on Linens N Things so I don't know whether their hypothesis holds any water — or at least any more water than believers talking about contamination or skeptics talking about medieval blood spatter photography — but what caught my attention was what the German team thinks the Church is hiding. Specifically, that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't resurrected so much as he just didn't die on the cross in the first place.
 
Their evidence for this is purely circumstantial bordering on speculation, but still it is very compelling. They begin with Joseph of Aramethea — what was a man from Aramathea doing with a brand new tomb so far from home? They speculate that he was hatching a plan to save the life of Jesus. A better question, though, is why did Jesus spend only a few hours on the cross when it's been historically documented that people who had been crucified could survive for several days at least?
 
Even Pontius Pilate seemed surprised that Jesus succumbed so quickly, but the Catholic Church attributes this to Jesus giving himself up to his fate and choosing to die. While this certainly makes for a dramatic storyline if we look at the crucifixion from a purely scientific and dispassionate viewpoint it is entirely plausible that when he was taken down from the cross only a few hours after being put up there he may have been unconscious and badly wounded/beaten, but not actually dead.
 
Furthermore, the marks on the shroud itself — while highly realistic — are inconsistent with a dead body. Rather, many experts say they would have had to have been made by a live person with those actual wounds. In the Bible it also says that Jesus' body was treated with Aloe and Myrrh. Interestingly, Myrrh is known in medicine to help stop bleeding and Aloe is still used today to help damaged skin heal faster.
 
Perhaps the most interesting claim made by the German group is that, while no one can seem to explain exactly how the image of the shroud may have formed (skeptics can reproduce some aspects using period technology, but nothing has been spot-on; believers attribute the image to the resurrection itself) they claim it's all very simple: Myrrh plus body heat from a feverish and unconscious (motionless) man can create such an image on linen with no master forgery artist or supernatural powers required.
 
And the Bible never explicitly claims Jesus resurrected. According to the New Testament his followers went to the tomb and found it empty, and later he appeared to several of his disciples. None of this really contradicts the hypothesis of the German team. Perhaps most interestingly, many Christians are unfamiliar with Jesus as recored in the religion of Islam. According the the Muslim tradition Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet who was crucified, but survived his crucifixion and lived out his years in lands to the east.
 
Now, I'm not trying to step on anyone's faith, so if you think this all a bunch of baloney that's perfectly all right. You might be right. Personally though, I withhold judgment because I'm unconvinced which (if any) of the current theories are historically accurate; and while pieces of it seem almost as farfetched as some of the other theories put forth, this new one ties things together in a way others don't and I find that positively fascinating.
 
- one 

Next Page >>>
Calendar

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031