← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr

Evolution Thriving in Mexico; Creationismo No Comprendo

Thread ID: 20898 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-11-05

Wayback Archive

Petr [OP]

2005-11-05 10:10 | User Profile

[I]Evo-believers cannot be mediocre herd-thinkers. No, sir.

I think this also reflects the militant (and Freemasonic) anti-clericalism of Mexican establishment.[/I]

[url]http://creationsafaris.com/crev200511.htm#20051104b[/url]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][B][SIZE="5"]Evolution Thriving in Mexico; Creationismo No Comprendo [/SIZE] [SIZE="3"] 11/04/2005[/SIZE] [/B]

[SIZE="3"]Mexicans, religious or not, have no problem with Darwin, and cannot understand their American neighbors who get so uptight about it. That’s the gist of an article by Antonio Lazcano, a Mexican biology professor and origin-of-life researcher, who was given lengthy press in Science1 this week under the heading “Global Voices of Science.” [I] [COLOR="Navy"] I am always amused when I am asked by my American colleagues about the problems and pressures they imagine I face in Mexico because of my interest in life’s beginnings. However, pressure to include creationism in public pedagogical and research settings has been primarily a phenomenon in the United States. [B]Only twice [/B]during my 30 years of teaching about evolutionary biology and research into the origins of life, have I encountered religious-based opposition to my work. In both cases, it came from [B]evangelical zealots from the United States preaching[/B] in Mexico. One of the little recognized U.S. imports into Mexico is [B]a small flow of creationists[/B], who, [B]through religion[/B], are trying to [B]impose their fundamentalist beliefs[/B] and [B]hinder the teaching of Darwinian evolution[/B] in all levels of schooling. [/COLOR][/I]

(Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Now that you know how Dr. Lazcano feels about non-Darwinists, his “Love Affair with Darwin” (subtitle 1) is understandable. The rest of the editorial falls into place. Getting the praise is primordial soup, Aleksandr Oparin, Huxley and separation of church and state. Getting condemnation is fundamentalism, America, intelligent design, creationism, and President Bush. Lazcano and his fellow Mexicans are incredulous at the American phenomenon of creationism. Even his staunchly Catholic students “found hilarious the idea of teaching creationism based on biblical literalism.” But creationism is not just silly, it is dangerous.

[I][COLOR="Navy"] Scientists from other countries could take a certain [B]solace[/B] in the fact that the [B]creationist movement appears to be largely confined to the United States[/B]. I find it[B] extremely encouraging [/B]that Mexican students, for the most part, are [B]not driven by gaps[/B] in the scientific view of life to search for [B]religious explanations [/B]or to vitiate evolutionary theory by advocating [B]intelligent design[/B]. Our teachers and pupils alike generally view the framework of [B]intelligent design[/B] as [B]a thinly disguised attempt to introduce religious preconceptions [/B]into the classroom. Even so, it would be[B] unwise to simply sit back[/B] and watch with [B]incredulity[/B] as our American colleagues struggle against [B]intelligent design creationists and other fundamentalisms[/B] [sic]. There are, in fact, manifold indications that [B]the creationism movement has been flexing its muscles [/B]and [B]looking to proselytize far and wide[/B]. Its potential [B]threat to science education[/B] in Mexico and other Latin American countries should not be underestimated.[/COLOR] [/I]

Speaking of gaps, does Lazcano have anything to say about arguably the biggest gap of all, life’s origin, since he is a specialist in that area, and the author of a book on it? Un problemo, sí, but alto, creationistas:

[I][COLOR="Navy"] Since [B]we can never know in full detail [/B]how the origin of life took place, it is[B] not surprising [/B]that it is [B]becoming a target for intelligent design creationists. [/B] The geological and chemical [B]evidence required to understand [/B]life’s beginnings remains[B] insufficient[/B] and [B]difficult[/B] to understand. For creationists, that [B]evidentiary gap[/B] provides an opportunity to erect a [B]framework of controversy [/B]and [B]endless discussion [/B]around the study of prebiotic evolution and the origin of life, which they assume are best explained by an [B]intelligent cause [/B]rather than by an [B]undirected process like natural selection[/B].

    [B]It is true [/B]that there is [B]a[/B][B] huge gap[/B] in the current descriptions of the [B]evolutionary transition[/B] between the prebiotic synthesis of biochemical compounds and the [B]last common ancestor of all extant living beings[/B] [02/29/2004]  Even the unanticipated discovery in 1982--by the research teams directed by Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman--of [B]catalytic RNA molecules [/B](ribozymes), which can be loosely described as nucleic acids that simultaneously have characteristics of DNA and enzymes, [B]has not closed this gap.  [/B]Instead, that and related discoveries have led to [B]a more precise definition of what should be understood [/B]as the origin of life.  The [B]origin of protein synthesis is still not understood[/B], but the [B]surprising conservation[/B] of widely distributed polypeptide sequences related to RNA metabolism has led my group and others to [B]suggest[/B] that these sequences provide [B]insights [/B][sic] into an [B]RNA/protein world [/B]that may have resulted from the [B]interaction of ribozymes with amino acids[/B], and that [B]very likely preceded [/B]our familiar DNA/RNA/protein world.  Our[B] understanding [/B]of the origin and early stages of biological evolution [B]still has major unsolved problems[/B], but they are recognized by the scientific community as [B]intellectual challenges[/B], and [B]not as requiring metaphysical explanations, as proponents of creationism would have it[/B]. [/COLOR][/I]

A photo in the article shows an elementary school in a small Mexican town, where “children celebrate Darwin’s birthday (12 February) with a ceremony and display of murals on his life and theory.” [B] 1 Antonio Lazcano, “Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir,” [I]Science[/I], Vol 310, Issue 5749, 787-789, 4 November 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1115180][/B] [/SIZE].[/FONT]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="DarkGreen"] [B] Anyone who has been watching the intelligent design controversy against evolution must surely wag his head over this adult tantrum. It’s articles like this that reinforce Phillip Johnson’s observation that certain Darwinists are so incorrigible, society will likely have to wait till they retire and die off before a rational discussion can be had. [/B][B]But that will never happen as long as Lazcano’s type take impressionable elementary school children, who cannot discern their left from their right, and indoctrinate them early into the Church of Darwin with celebrations of Darwin Day (02/13/2004) and worship of a Padre Carlos Darwinez they don’t even know. [/B]Maybe a little more free trade and removing of export controls is in order.

[B] Lazcano is a hopeless demagogue, like Barbara Forrest, who cannot be trusted, because the search for truth is not their motive. They are at war, and any lie is justifiable if it advances the cause.[/B] Their arsenal includes the B.A.D. tactical weapon (Bluffing Assertion Dogma), which acts as if “anything I say is true because I said it with feeling.” They also use the M.A.D. bomb (Most Accept Darwin) and fuel the propaganda against the threatening enemy by drawing the starkest black-and-white distinctions: science vs. “creationism and other fundamentalisms,” so that the little children envision their alleged enemies as bomb-vested machine gunners disguising their shifty eyes with smiling Phillip Johnson masks.

    And so, we ask, what warrants this unquestioning allegiance to the cause, to this eternal Love Affair with Darwin?  Can we ask you about your specialty, Señor Lazcano, the origin of life?  Here, we are told that yes, there are major gaps, even in the favored RNA World scenario, BUT don’t you think for a moment of exploiting that little breach in the wall of our Jericho.  Sooner or later we will find a brick that won’t fall over at the slightest shout of “intelligent design.”

    The shame of this bluff, wroth, fluff and froth by a modern Darwin Bulldog is only exceeded by [I]Science[/I] having printed it.  No opportunity for debate or rebuttal, just a temper tantrum by a man who cannot even use his own field to prop up his idol, but is determined to shove his worldview and hate down the throats of poor Mexican children.  Undoubtedly the editors were shouting “Hear, hear!” as they read this, gleefully giving it prominence in their liberal-leftist propaganda rag (speaking of the editorial positions, not the legitimate research papers by practicing scientists).

    Notice the arrogance.  Lazcano and his cheering buddies have basically set themselves up as the intellectual superiors of generations of the world’s greatest thinkers.  As one example, consider the quote at the top right of this page. [B] Dr. Daniel J. Robinson is a scholar [I]par excellence [/I]at Oxford, a professor’s professor, a man who could run intellectual marathons around Lazcano. [/B] Conversant in several languages, he is able to ad lib on the intricacies of Stoicism, the mind-body problem, Cicero, David Hume, scholasticism, the history and philosophy of science, psychology, ancient literature, Turing machines, Greek philosophy – practically any subject from the Babylonians to E. O. Wilson.  Robinson ended 30 hours of profoundly deep and enlightened lecturing with that quote.  At the end of surveying the grand sweep of intellectual history from ancient times to the present, he found the evidence for intelligent design convincing.  His winsome manner allowed for all good arguments to be heard, but from his own broad base of knowledge and experience, he chose[I] that [/I]one – the conclusion that a benevolent, provident, all-wise, all-knowing Creator, yes indeed “God, really?  Yeah; [I]really[/I],” designed this world for a purpose.[B]  Lazcano and [I]Science[/I] have just called Dr. Robinson a know-nothing.[/B]  They have consigned all others who have doubts about Padre Carlos, anyone who thinks the arguments for design have merit, from David Berlinski to President Bush, from Antony Flew to Scott Minnich, no matter how much expertise, experience and knowledge, to the party of dangerous enemies who must be stopped before they corrupt the pure faith of students in Padre Carlos.  They have consigned millennia of great thinkers, scientists and educators to the trash heap of history, now that Messiah Darwin has come and brought the great enlightenment.

    Sorry, Antonio, we tried to help.  May you someday rest in peace.[/COLOR][/FONT]

Okiereddust

2005-11-05 11:08 | User Profile

Catholics for some reason never seem to get excited about a lot of the fundamentalist issues. Such as creationism or biblical criticism. They just seem to say "ho-hum, scientific processes created man, and the Church created God and the Bible. Let's not confuse the two". The only fundamentalist issues Catholics seem to get excited about regard sex, in one way or another. Although in any event Latin American countries have a different history. The battle of a populist Protestants against secular elites is a notion that doesn't resonate with them.

Although I'll have to let Walter or Quantrill respond, if they see this thread, while they're taking a break from their Catholic forums"

Petr

2005-11-05 20:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The only fundamentalist issues Catholics seem to get excited about regard sex, in one way or another.[/QUOTE]

And sometimes even many conservative Roman Catholics support some blatantly contra-Biblical ideas like abolishing death penalty. Such piety looks to me like soft-headed humanism in Christian guise.

Petr

Petr

2005-11-05 20:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]They just seem to say "ho-hum, scientific processes created man, and the Church created God and the Bible. Let's not confuse the two".[/QUOTE]

By the way, could this basically[B] secular[/B] approach indeed derive originally from Thomas Aquinas and his separation of grace and nature, as Francis Schaeffer argued?

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20621&highlight=venner[/url]

Petr

Gregor

2005-11-05 21:32 | User Profile

Pete

Evolution thriving in Mexico? Didn't look like it last time I was there. I think they've just now gotten to the Paleolithic era. :clown: Since they're behind us intellectually (I know, that's arguable, well at least in certain disciplines), they're just now coming into the fascination with Darwin. The holes and improbability will eventually lead them to ID.

Petr

2005-11-05 22:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gregor]Since they're behind us intellectually (I know, that's arguable, well at least in certain disciplines), they're just now coming into the facination with Darwin.[/QUOTE]

It's a truism that crude scientolatry appeals most to primitive people who see it as a totem that can turn men into gods. Having an inferiority complex, they want to look oh-so-progressive that they will haplessly imitate all the worst modernist tomfoolery that Westerners have managed to come up with - see Evelyn Waugh's book "Black Mischief".

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-11-06 00:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]By the way, could this basically[B] secular[/B] approach indeed derive originally from Thomas Aquinas and his separation of grace and nature, as Francis Schaeffer argued?

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20621&highlight=venner[/url]

Petr[/QUOTE]I'm not sure really about Catholicism, I was saying that tongue in cheek. Catholicism certainly is different than Protestanism, but I don't want to make any generalizations, or stir up fights unnnecessarily with our Catholic contingent like Buster, Walter, or Quantrill.

This [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7274-2005Jan13.html"]Washington Post link[/URL] is intersting. It has a couple of interesting statements one regards the intelligent design history of Protestantism [QUOTE]but there is a long history within Protestant Christianity of using evidence of design in nature as proof for God and indication of His character. [/QUOTE]which I think indicates why evolutionism has historically stirred up Protestantism more than Catholicism. He also suggests that evolutionism is an issue some places in Latin America so maybe the Catholic parallelism can be stretched.

Mexico historically has had a great suspicion of the Catholic Church getting involved in political controversies, so there may be a peculiar dynamic there that's somewhat different than elsewhere in Latin America, although such a situation isn't unknown.

Also it might be noted that even for Latin's, I think that Mexicans have a peculiar dynamic with the truth and a tendency to boast and exagerate. I suspect you should take the couple of attention-getting statements in this article, like any other one-person interview with Mexicans, with a couple of grains of salt.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-11-06 00:26 | User Profile

[quote=Okiereddust]Although I'll have to let Walter or Quantrill respond, if they see this thread, while they're taking a break from their Catholic forums" Walter and Quantrill are more informed about this than I am, but I can tell you that it is a matter of official Catholic doctrine that there is no "fundamental" incompatibility between evolutionary teaching and the teaching of the church.

Okiereddust

2005-11-06 01:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Walter and Quantrill are more informed about this than I am, but I can tell you that it is a matter of official Catholic doctrine that there is no "fundamental" incompatibility between evolutionary teaching and the teaching of the church.[/QUOTE]Well here's the story from the horses mouth

[QUOTE]Adam, Eve, and Evolution

[B]The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man[/B]. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. .............

Science and Religion

[B]The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist [I]provided each keeps within his own limits. . . .[/I][/B]

[URL="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]Catholic.com[/URL] [/QUOTE]As to what these limits are, it does seem that most of the arguments that occur happen between Protestant groups and Scientific American types Scientific American for instance fired a fellow because he was a believing Christian, and I've read other articles complaining how many young people after being tought the theory of evolution in schools still believe in the Bible and the Biblical account of creation. There certainly is some infringement from that side.

Happy Hacker

2005-11-06 01:42 | User Profile

The great thing about being an Evolutionary Scientist is that you never have to be productive. Antonio Lazcano can rant from his adobe tower about how ignorant others are. But, he doesn't have to show any results. As for me, I'll start listening to him when he can demonstrate the origin of life through natural means.

Angeleyes

2005-11-06 06:15 | User Profile

Given the corruption of Catholicism/Christianity that is practiced in Mexico, and the considerable pagan influences, it is no surprise to see the "Mexican establishment" which is based on a revolution by secularists, back evolution as the only answer to The Question in question: how did this all start?

AE

[quote=Petr][I]Evo-believers cannot be mediocre herd-thinkers. No, sir. [/I][I]I think this also reflects the militant (and Freemasonic) anti-clericalism of Mexican establishment.[/I]

[URL="http://creationsafaris.com/crev200511.htm#20051104b"]http://creationsafaris.com/crev200511.htm#20051104b[/URL]

[FONT=Times New Roman][B][SIZE=5]Evolution Thriving in Mexico; Creationismo No Comprendo [/SIZE][/B] [SIZE=3] [B]11/04/2005[/B][/SIZE] [/FONT][FONT=Arial][COLOR=darkgreen] Sorry, Antonio, we tried to help. May you someday rest in peace.[/COLOR][/FONT]

Texas Dissident

2005-11-06 13:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Given the corruption of Catholicism/Christianity that is practiced in Mexico, and the considerable pagan influences, it is no surprise to see the "Mexican establishment" which is based on a revolution by secularists, back evolution as the only answer to The Question in question: how did this all start?[/QUOTE]

That's a no brainer, AE.

The Mexican establishment are all Marranos.

:shocking:

Petr

2005-11-06 13:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That's a no brainer, AE. The Mexican establishment are all Marranos.[/QUOTE]

Are you being serious, Tex? Vicente Fox is actually of Irish origin...

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-11-06 19:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Are you being serious, Tex?[/QUOTE]

No, not really.

Angler

2005-11-07 07:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]And sometimes even many conservative Roman Catholics support some blatantly contra-Biblical ideas like abolishing death penalty. Such piety looks to me like soft-headed humanism in Christian guise.[/QUOTE]The Catholic push to abolish the death penalty might have something to do with Jesus' admonition to "judge not, lest you be judged." And then there was that time when he got the adulteress off the hook when she was about to be stoned. "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone." (Notice that Jesus did not say, "Let the one among you who is without sin [u]as bad as or worse than adultery[/u] cast the first stone.") Maybe Jesus just didn't like the idea of people thinking that they were holy enough to judge other human beings, "created in God's image," as worthy of death. I guess a lot of Catholics (and other Christians) decided they'd pay attention to what Jesus said.

Okiereddust

2005-11-07 09:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I guess a lot of Catholics (and other Christians) decided they'd pay attention to what Jesus said.[/QUOTE]Are you showing your closet liberal side Angler? Just disguising it as the nauseating hypocrisy of editorilizing on what others are supposed to believe, without any obligation to believe it yourself?