Swamp Christians
Okay, I’ve come up with a term that just sends Nearest into a storm of giggles every time I use it:
“Swamp Christian.”
You know the type. Snake-handlers, Leviticus-First, If-English-Was-Good-Enough-For-Jesus. Think the Big Bang was about the creation, instead of the movement of objects through space. Use the term “evolutionism.” Turn a blind eye while the priest grabs the boys or the pastor grabs the girls. Show up celebrating gay funerals. Try to treat adults like kids. Stand up in legislatures and do obvious grabs at political power. Wear ‘way too much makeup on TV and always end a culture-war rant with a demand for funds — or drool over the people who do. Start cults where they lock up un-submissive women. Yada yada yada.
The kind of people Jesus would have slapped his own forehead over, groaning, “God! I thought I made this stuff simple enough! I meant: ‘Do the right thing and don’t be a jerk!’ “
QED
This was part of a discussion for Norwescon panels:
The problem with these panels at fan cons is that often terms are not defined before they start, and they spend most of the hour tearing the terms apart instead of getting into the meat of the subject. If somebody thinks global warming is “junk,” use the scientific method — ask them for their reasons. Require proofs. And no, they don’t get to quote scientists whom we find out are pissed about having their names used in an argument for a theory they never backed. Either GET the proof — or go back to the lab.
Most religion IS the original science, but it is based on older theories. Or equipment. For example: “I have an eye. I can see the sun move. Therefore, the sun moves, not the earth.” With math, a proof could be offered that the EARTH moved. Certainly helped with those pesky retrograde planets. At last, with space travel, somebody could stand on the moon and see the earth as the planet it was. With the original (eyeball) equipment. Meanwhile, religion stayed static, depending on the old eyeball observations. It can’t change or move because it limits the equipment.
If religion or politics want to BE science, they have to bring proofs — and then where is faith? Or economic theory?
How to sooth a religious person who thinks the Big Bank is about creation: point out that it’s ONLY really about the movement of objects through space. If they ask, “Well, what if you prove there’s a god?” the shrug is: “Then it’ll be proved.” But remind them of what Douglas Adams said. QED.
Ethiopia is MUCH more civilized than us — they divide science and religion quite happily, and don’t mix them up. That very religious country is very proud of the Lucy exhibits.
Rejecta
Note to the author of the Darwin Awards books and site:
Nearest and I just read Next Evolution and laughed our heads off; you have nothing to apologize for, reporting on the stupidity of the Ape That Walks Like A Bacterium.
We very much enjoyed your science detours. You’ll understand my next question as based in scientific curiosity, and not anger (well, maybe a bit, dealing with the Rejecta). I’m NOT a scientist, but I hope I understand scientific rigor:
Given that the human male seems to kill a large proportion of the females of this species (admitting that this is an unproven proposition and would need research), especially if he has a history of being rejected by females, or if any female rejects him, is it possible that this is an extreme development of a normal breeding instinct?
As most — if not all — males fight and/or kill males of their species to prevent the other males from passing on their DNA (even though — or if — unconsciously), could the killing of human females, contingent on a given male being rejected or otherwise not allowed to breed, be an attempt to make her unavailable to another male to pass on his DNA?
Taking into consideration of “unnatural” environments — as the roebucks described by Konrad Lorenz, that gored fenced females and young because the males could corner them — is it a natural human instinct for the male human to kill the female he cannot impregnate?
Does the “unnatural” human environment actually PREVENT many deaths through education and societal controls?
(You probably recognize the Garbage Brain that can lead to being a scientist, or an engineer… or a ham radio operator).
(Possible reference: the 1989 Montreal selective killing of females).
Thank you for your time.
DBarr
