The Miss USA competition is evidence that our culture celebrates beauty over brains. Now, that isn’t to say these women aren’t smart per se. All I mean to suggest is that they needn’t sound intelligent to win the pageant. Consider, for example, the contestants’ answers when asked whether evolution should be taught in public schools:
Their answers were, for the most part, woefully (and unashamedly) ignorant. (You can watch every contestant’s answer here.) Several contestants, perhaps wanting to avoid a Carrie Prejean-like controversy, answered that both religion and evolution should be taught in schools. Both should be taught in schools, but not in a science class where students may confuse creationism for an alternative scientific theory to evolution. Religious ideas about the origin and evolution of life should be discussed in philosophy or religious studies courses.
Worse still, of the 51 contestants, only two “unequivocally support[ed]” evolution. Thankfully one of those two was crowned Miss USA: California’s Alyssa Campanella. Here was her response:
I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I’m a huge science geek. [...] I like to believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time.
That’s it! SHAFT has gone too far! you can attack my religion, but I draw the line when you attack my pretty women. ;)
Miss California didn’t sound too bright either. Why do we conflate Big Bang with Evolution? I mean, somehow both are “Science” and not “Religion’ and we imagining that Religion rejects both, but wasn’t the original Big Bang theory mocked as itself a Creationist Theory when it first came along? And, wasn’t it actually thought up by a Catholic Priest?
I seem to recall that Steady State theory was the big thing back then, and the idea that the Universe had a definite beginning at some point, as opposed to always being here, was what Religion Taught. Science contradicted Religion by saying that the Universe was Eternal and Infinite, and had no beginning or end.
The Big Bang Theory was resisted by Mainstream Scientists precisely because it seemed too “Religious”.
But now we think that if you are Religious you reject Big Bang and if you are Scientific you accept it.
I have problems with that. In fact, I have problems with assuming that being Religious means you reject Science too. Its not really like we have to pick being Scientific over being Religious and the whole Science VS Religion Conflict Thesis was abandoned already by Historians about 80 years ago. Why is it even still around?
I have a theory that people think in words and really don’t take the time to learn History OR what the words actually mean.
We just do a magic word association. We know Religion and Science are in conflict so if something belongs to one camp the other must reject it.
Its crazy.
if you say that you can’t teach something because students will have different values toward the subject, then don’t teach the civil rights movement or the holocaust because there are racist assholes out there. rediculous.
Anon, I have two real problems with your argument.
First off, comparing Religious people with racists is itself just an attempt at emotional manipulation. It has no real place in civil discourse.
Also, people who want Intelligent Design theory taught don’t want it taught because of different moral values. They want it taught because they believe its actually true and that it should be given equal time with Evolution because its just as valid a Scientific Theory as Evolution is to them. Its not really all about Values.
Though I do agree the underlying political debate will inevitably tie with values, I’d also maintain that about died in the wool Evolutionary spokesmen like Richard Dawkins who has an obvious agenda that extends well beyond merely asserting the Scientific consensus and into promoting a specific social and political value system.
However, that is incidental to whether or not Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught side by side, or if Evolution alone should be taught. The argument for Teaching Intelligent Design is not really “ we have different Values and you should respect that’, its “We think the Scientific Data supports Intelligent Design and that it’s a better model for how Life got started than Evolution and deserves equal time.”
Now, you can disagree with the above statement, I sure do, but that’s the actual argument, not values.