Misc. Ramblings

In its April 1st issue, the respected American Scientific magazine editorializes by admitting that they were wrong on "creationism, missile defense and global warming."

In retrospect, this mag-azine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence....

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Having read that, I too must confess that I've been wrong. After long discounting the right-wing wackos deeply conservative who are against everything from fluoridation of drinking water (which they recently persuaded the local county council to make it illegal to fluoridate water in the city of Honolulu) to death with dignity (not to be confused with sticking electrodes into prisoners and running 120volts through them until their brains and internal organs fry), I must admit I was wrong.

How could I have been so fooled by human-based science? Doesn't faith-based science explain everything? Who needs scientifically controlled studies? Doesn't the universe revolve around the Earth?

Doesn't faith-based education teach everything anyone should know? Who needs pedagogic theory?

Why shouldn't the President use faith-based criteria to determine how to spend billions of tax payer dollars?

Doesn't faith-based medicine heal all (who needs doctors, hospitals, and medicine anyway)?

And finally, recent events suggest the need for a faith-based judicial system. Surely that would better than an independent judiciary, right? Who needs the Constitution and the rule of law when you can proudly carry the Bible into the courtroom and rule directly and solely from that?

Yup, how could I have been so wrong? I guess you just have to believe and ignore reality.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!