ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (05/11/84)
-- From Yosi Hoshen: >> If I did not know who are the proponents of the creationism law, >> I would undoubtly think that "creation science" is a communist >> ploy, aimed at subverting the intra-structure of science >> education in the US. Communists and other enemies of the US can >> sit back leisurely, observing how their job is done by the >> creationists and their allies. Yosi, don't you think that this time your arguments are a bit too far- fetched? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 11 May 84 [22 Floreal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
mwg@mouton.UUCP (05/15/84)
-- Many Conservatives believe that pure anti-creationism as taught in many public schools undermines a person's self-worth concept, deteriorates the human psyche, drives a person to alcohol and other drugs, and thus subverts a nation's productivity and efficiency. That's why alcoholism is the USSR's number one problem, and why alcoholism and drug addiction is becoming the USA's number one problem. Now do you see why many Conservatives believe that pure anti-creationism should be diluted with creationism, and that pure anti-creationism advocates may well be "Commies", "Commie-sympathizers," or unwitting dupes of the international Communist conspiracy? [~ :-)] -Dave Caplan
edhall@randvax.UUCP (05/17/84)
+ > Many Conservatives believe that pure anti-creationism as taught > in many public schools undermines a person's self-worth concept, > deteriorates the human psyche, drives a person to alcohol and other drugs, > and thus subverts a nation's productivity and efficiency. That's why > alcoholism is the USSR's number one problem, and why alcoholism and drug > addiction is becoming the USA's number one problem. > > Now do you see why many Conservatives believe that pure > anti-creationism should be diluted with creationism, and that pure > anti-creationism advocates may well be "Commies", "Commie-sympathizers," > or unwitting dupes of the international Communist conspiracy? [~ :-)] > > -Dave Caplan > I'm speechless... If there is an ounce of logic in the above, I'd like to hear about it. I see no connection whatever between the teaching of evolution, and alcoholism and drug-abuse. I see no reason for labeling evolution as `anti-creationism'. (Methinks it is more likely to be the other way around, but that's a bias.) And how does this tie the teaching of evolution into the international Communist conspiracy? Why don't any of the `many Conservatives' I know believe any of what Dave Caplan says? Maybe they are unwitting Commie dupes. Or perhaps they realize that the evolution/creationism controversy is an honest one, and not one based on a Communist hoax. And maybe they realize that there are factors far more important in producing self-worth than ones belief in ones origins. They are far more likely to see lagging productivity as a symptom of excessive government control than as a result of the teaching of evolution. Branding all you disagree with as a Communist conspiracy has absolutely nothing to do with traditional Conservatism. Now, Conservatives take the Communist threat very, very seriously, but they don't see a Commie under every bed, nor consider every `Liberal' cause to be Communist- inspired. However, certain members of the Radical Right have appropriated the Conservative label, and have used it to add respectability to their militant advocacy. Don't be fooled; many of these people want far more profound changes to our society than almost any Liberal, and justify their use of the term Conservative by manufacturing a `past' that is almost entirely mythical. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/25/84)
[I have tried to submit this article to the net few days ago, but it did not go out. The computer must have conspired against me....] >From Yosi Hoshen: >> If I did not know who are the proponents of the creationism law, >> I would undoubtly think that "creation science" is a communist >> ploy, aimed at subverting the intra-structure of science >> education in the US. Communists and other enemies of the US can >> sit back leisurely, observing how their job is done by the >> creationists and their allies. >Yosi, don't you think that this time your arguments are a bit too far- >fetched? The above response implies that my assumption on communists rejoicing the destruction of science education in the US by creationism is far-fetched. Well, let me carry my arguments a step further. I will propose a hypothetical scenario where the Soviets are depicted as a power actively helping the creationism cause. In this scenario the Soviets will be portrayed not just as passive bystanders observing with joy the creationism circus, but as covert participants in promoting - in the best tradition of Soviet subversion - creationism. My premise is that the Soviets will attempt to subvert science education, the weak link in the science system of the US. Obviously, deterioration of science education will have a disastrous effect on the future of US security. I will start this discussion by listing my basic assumptions. These assumptions deal with science, security, subversion, and dogma. ASSUMPTIONS: 1. The Soviets would like to undermine US security. 2. Science is crucial to maintain a credible defense system. 3. Although science education is necessary for long term science progress, the fact is that science education in the US is inadequate. 4. The Soviets are trying to exploit the openness and freedom of expression in Western societies which they consider to be weaknesses. According to US state department officials the Soviets infiltrated the peace and freeze movements in the west. The aim of the Soviets is to increase the discord among the members of the Western alliance. They hope to use the peace movements in the West to further this aim. 5. In the fields of espionage and subversion the Soviets proved to be very efficient and resourceful. 6. Although Soviets are oppressing religion in their own country and Eastern Europe, they will cooperate with religionists outside their direct sphere of influence, if such cooperation furthers their goal of world domination. Their cooperation of the USSR with Qadafi, the fanatic religious ruler of Libya, is well documented. 7. The Soviets are familiar with the dire consequences of introducing dogma into science. The Soviets must remember the agricultural disasters that befell them between 1930 and 1950. The sanctioning of new "genetic theories", introduced by the soviet "scientist" - T. D. Lysenko, by the Soviet government is viewed as a major cause for the agricultural disasters. Lysenko's new theories postulated that environmental conditioning could alter the genetic characteristics of an organism during its lifetime. These theories are inconsistent with standard genetic theories which say that heredity information is printed into the reproductive cells from the outset of life. The new "environmental" theories of Lysenko were appealing to Communist Party ideologists, since these theories were considered to be compatible with Marxist dogma. Communist Party ideologists claimed that standard genetics is a manifestation of bourgeois decadence (term equivalent to Satanism in the Marxist jargon), and that it is inconsistent with the Dialectical Materialism (a Marxist term for Marxist dogma). LOUISIANA CREATIONISM AND SOVIET SUBVERSION The Louisiana creationism law could deliver a knockout blow to science education in that state. What kind of science teachers (if any) will continue to teach science in the Louisiana school system? What is the nature of science that can be taught under the Louisiana creationism law? Presently, there is an acute shortage of qualified science teachers in the US. Enacting similar creationism laws in other states will turn this shortage from acute to critical. The Louisiana creationism law, if it survives the constitutionality test, could become a launching pad for similar laws at the state or federal level. The USSR may find this as the opportune moment to expedite the destruction of science education in the US. Given the USSR's disastrous experience with interjecting dogmas (Marxist) into science, and their mastery in subversion techniques, they may decide that at little cost to themselves they could further undermine US security. They could do so by "helping" accelerate the process of science erosion in the US. One may ask the question how could the USSR accomplish this task. Obviously, it is not possible to know what precise action the Soviets could take. Yet, analyzing past Soviet acts of espionage and subversion, it may be possible to spell out some areas where they could hit. POSSIBLE TARGETS OF SOVIET SUBVERSION: 1. Funnel money into creationist movements. 2. Plant artifacts and paleontological objects which will "support" creationism. For example, they could "assist" locating Noah's Ark........ 3. Orchestrate a sting operation in the US, aimed at promoting creationism in the US. For example, the KGB could set up "grass root" creationist organizations in the US. They could do so by providing leadership and funds for such organizations. The membership of these organizations need not be aware of the conspiracy. On the contrary, the membership will most likely be very patriotic and fervently anti-communist. Far-fetched? Let me remind you of the a very elaborate sting operation, launched by the CHEKA (KGB of the twenties) in the early days that followed the Soviet revolution. Lenin was very concerned by counter-revolutionary forces within Russia and in the West. The Soviets formed the Trust* organization which professed to be a powerful anti-Soviet organization. The Trust attracted many anti-Soviet activists, most notable among these was the British super-spy Sydney Reilly. By controlling this organization the Soviets were able to use the anti-communist members of the Trust to raise funds for the USSR in the west. The funds that were intended to subvert the Soviets were really used to solidify communist rule over Russia. In addition, the existence of the Trust prevented any real effort by counter-revolutionaries to overthrow the communist system, as the opponents of the Soviet regime were convinced that the Trust was doing the job. ----------------------------------------------------------- *H. Rositzke's Book "The KGB" gives a more detailed account of the Soviet sting Trust operation. CONCLUSION I don't think that it is possible to convince the creationists that their activities could lead to severe deterioration in science education, and could open the door for soviet subversion of scientific progress in the US. The creationists, trapped by their religious beliefs, will continue their attempts to legislate science. The problem lies with those conservative politicians such as the members of the Louisiana legislative bodies who supported the Louisiana creationism law. I don't believe that all these legislators are diehard creationists. Rather, they are most likely driven by political expediency. I think these legislators ignore the long term effects of their action on the security of the US and its relationship to scientific progress. Creationists have the right to adhere to their religious beliefs, but we have the duty to ensure that science flourishes, unhindered by religious dogma. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
palmer@uw-june (David Palmer) (06/03/84)
<He's got the brains of a pickle, and a gherkin at that!> >>Yosi Hoshen >Larry Bickford >> The Louisiana creationism law could deliver a knockout blow to science >> education in that state. >Hey AT&T - Yosi's keyboard needs TP!:-) Physics teachers can still teach >physics; ditto for chemistry and a host of other fields. But the >evolutionary dogma will no longer continue unchallenged. Experiments >have been made in several school districts with the two-model approach >and the results have been *better* learning. If a physics teacher taught that the stars are billions of years old, and that the light from quasars has travelled for 10 billion years; If a chemistry teacher mentioned that the rock that she (I know the Bible prohibits female teachers, but one step at a time) just disolved in vinegar was made of the shells of animals which died hundreds of millions of years ago; If a math teacher suggests that his pupils calculate the rate of rain required to cover all of Earth's mountains in 40 days and nights (about 30 FEET per hour); Then the Holy Inquisition (I'm sorry, I mean the thought police (I'm sorry, I mean the Gestapo (I'm sorry, I mean the Moral Majority (I'm sorry, I mean the curriculum board)))) will come down on them like a ton of bibles. I don't know what the people who made the studies meant by *better* learning, perhaps the more faithful replication of their teacher's prattle. It may very well lead to thought, distrust of authority, and other good things, but the studies wouldn't show that. People who learn such things also quickly learn to hide their learning, at least until they find a good teacher. >> Enacting similar creationism laws in other states will turn [the >> shortage of qualified science teachers] from acute to critical. >I guess advanced scientists had better stop their work, because public >school teachers are too incompetent to learn any more. :-( I guess advanced scientists like Aritosthenes(sp? the person who discovered that the Earth was round), Galileo and Darwin had better stop their work, because the Fundamentalist orders are too dogmatic to learn any more. >> Given the USSR's disastrous experience with interjecting dogmas >> (Marxist) into science ... >Alas, had they no support for their beliefs apart from their dogma? >Actually, the U.S. schools are suffering from dogma mixed with science - >evolutionist dogma. Yes, they had support for their dogmas. Places like Gorky, organizations like the KGB, that strange theology called Marxism. All that their dogmas lacked was an ability to stand up to scrutiny (also called science.) >If I were any power wanting to subvert the U.S. (or any other country, >for that matter), I wouldn't waste my time with things like science >education. I'd go after something more basic - break down their moral >system. Emphasize rights; weaken the concept of responsibility. Get >them to look at short-term goals, rather than long-range effects. >Promote instant gratification - the more sensual the better. And in >these, they've done a very good job. If I were any power wanting to subvert the U.S. (or any other country, for that matter) I would attack the ability for independant thought. Then I could destroy their technological base by bringing down science education, give them a set of rigidly defined, unquestionable rules, grind it into their very soul that they have no more rights than a worm, make sure that they understand that it is their responsibility to support the leadership in everything. I would tell them that if they are willing slaves now, they will eventually receive a great reward (on Earth if I were communist, in heaven if I were Christian.) Promote ridiculous levels of self denial (People may have sex only with their spouses, only and always if the husband wants it, and (if Catholic) only if the purpose is to create more people who are potential willing slaves.) And in these, the Churches and the Communists have done a very good job. >To steal Yosi's phrase, we have the duty to ensure that science >flourishes, unhindered by *evolutionist* religious dogma. To steal Larry's phrase, we have a duty to ensure that thought flourishes, unhindered by *any* dogma. Flame all you like, I'm graduating on Saturday and will be away from the heat. The Cute Signoff of David Palmer ...decvax!uw-beaver!uw-june!palmer P.S. So long and thanks for all the fish.
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (06/20/84)
From Larry Bickford: >Is Yosi Hoshen for real? Creationism a Soviet conspiracy? > >Yosi may start with some decent premises, but his conclusions are >nowhere close to real. If you read my article carefully, you would note that my article did not say that the present Louisiana Creationism Law is a Soviet Conspiracy. I was talking about a hypothetical scenario that could arise if the creationism law survives the constitutionality test. >> Given the USSR's disastrous experience with interjecting dogmas >> (Marxist) into science ... >Alas, had they no support for their beliefs apart from their dogma? Mr. Lysenko, the father of "scientific Marxist genetics" in the USSR, and his colleagues, using questionable scientific methodology, produced "experimental data", which they claimed supported their genetic theories. Looking at some recent endeavors of creationist "scientists", it is not too difficult to notice that the Lysenkoism and Creationism methodologies have a lot in common. To illustrate my point let me remind you of two recent creationism "research projects", namely, creationists' moon dust and speed of light "studies". >Actually, the U.S. schools are suffering from dogma mixed with science - >evolutionist dogma. Flat-earthers claim that the round earth theory is a dogma, whereas their flat-earth theory is the truth. Obviously, such claims do not make "flat-earth science" true, and round earth false. Creationists are free to make the claim that evolution is a dogma, but this claim is as valid as the flat-earthers' claim. There is nothing holy in evolution or any other scientific theory. A scientific theory will be replaced by an alternate theory when scientists - not religionists or politicians - arrive at a consensus that the theory is outdated. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
rs@hou3c.UUCP (rs) (06/21/84)
<>
To all interested in this topic I would like to point out that no
matter what one believes with respect to the Evolution vs. Creation Science
debate, some good is arising from the issue. That is that people are
examining what our children are being taught in the schools today.
No matter what any scientist tells me today about the "theory" of evolution,
when I was in school I was taught that some things were FACTS. PERIOD.
Don't question them. And this is primarily due to the fact that it was
easier for my teachers to teach this way then try to explain the methods of
reasoning used to derive the current theories. No matter what is being
taught, this type of teaching should be discouraged as no intellectual
growth ("learning") really takes place then. This type of teaching
hinders rather than helps a person to learn. (you can see how effective
my English teachers were :-)
Bob Switzer
AT&T Bell Labs
...!houxf!hou3c!rs