Why should the scientific community be concerned about the “threat” of creationism? In actuality, we don't need to answer; we all know and respect their reasons. What I don’t understand is the prevalent myopia about another kind of “creationism” that is taking place in the world today and that is based on science and may be more disturbing than the religious one.
Apparently, such a fear springs from an argument that maintains that the universe and all things were produced, and continue to exist only through the decision, plan and action of a supernatural agent (God). And that kind of knowledge, our scientists say, is a “threat” to science education and should have no place in the scientific community. Fine. What about that knowledge that tells us that “democracy is the best form of government” and that only through the decision, plan and action of a superpower o super agent (U.S.) imposing such “intelligent design” in the world it would be a better place to live?
You would argue that religion and politics are quite different matters, and I agree. But if you think that I am making an irresponsible connection between the two concepts, I don’t. We all know that our educational systems have institutionalized politics as “political sciences” and economics as “economic sciences.” And in these social sciences, as in all natural sciences, analogies are valuable tools of knowledge. All I am doing here is offering an argument that involves an analogy between “religious creationism” and “political creationism.”
I am not saying that “democracy” is something “bad” or that this political system lacks causes for pride. The issue is that we, as a superpower, are institutionalizing this “best form” of government in the world as the product of a “scientific design” through electoral politics, social engineering, war and market equilibrium, and not as the human action of authentic and immediate actors. If not, why have we made an issue with other societies that historically have undertaken “different forms” of government (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, etc,)? Is it not because these “different forms” of government are not “intelligent designs”?
What would be your point of allegation, then, if you were to argue about some possible difference between the God’s “intelligent design” and the superpower’s “intelligent design”? My feeling is that the causes of the prevalent myopia about the “scientific creationism” would be found in what the social theorist F. A. Hayek called “scientistic prejudice.”
Apparently, such a fear springs from an argument that maintains that the universe and all things were produced, and continue to exist only through the decision, plan and action of a supernatural agent (God). And that kind of knowledge, our scientists say, is a “threat” to science education and should have no place in the scientific community. Fine. What about that knowledge that tells us that “democracy is the best form of government” and that only through the decision, plan and action of a superpower o super agent (U.S.) imposing such “intelligent design” in the world it would be a better place to live?
You would argue that religion and politics are quite different matters, and I agree. But if you think that I am making an irresponsible connection between the two concepts, I don’t. We all know that our educational systems have institutionalized politics as “political sciences” and economics as “economic sciences.” And in these social sciences, as in all natural sciences, analogies are valuable tools of knowledge. All I am doing here is offering an argument that involves an analogy between “religious creationism” and “political creationism.”
I am not saying that “democracy” is something “bad” or that this political system lacks causes for pride. The issue is that we, as a superpower, are institutionalizing this “best form” of government in the world as the product of a “scientific design” through electoral politics, social engineering, war and market equilibrium, and not as the human action of authentic and immediate actors. If not, why have we made an issue with other societies that historically have undertaken “different forms” of government (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, etc,)? Is it not because these “different forms” of government are not “intelligent designs”?
What would be your point of allegation, then, if you were to argue about some possible difference between the God’s “intelligent design” and the superpower’s “intelligent design”? My feeling is that the causes of the prevalent myopia about the “scientific creationism” would be found in what the social theorist F. A. Hayek called “scientistic prejudice.”
