"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> "19 States Awarded Low Scores on Teaching of Evolution"
> See: http://www.aaas.org/news/evolution2.html
>
> No wonder the luddites are winning. Robert
And the greens. Consider the current strategy of the greens: to
minimize or reverse anything that humans have done to modify
the environment. An example would be the fiasco over the wild
burros and mules in Death Valley. Since they were originally
brought in by the miners, so they are not native and should be,
by green theory, removed. However the greens do not wish to
actually slaughter the burros, which are after all *wild* animals,
so they rounded them up and offered them to people to keep
as pets. Wellllll, turns out wild burros didnt make such good pets,
for reasons you can easily imagine. Soon enterprising people were
"adopting" the beasts and immediately selling them to the
dogfood company.
The question then becomes, how long must a species exist in an
area to be considered native, assuming it was originally transplanted
there by humans? Can that species *ever* achieve native-hood?
Nowthen, there is no talk of exterminating beavers, these creatures
that modify their environment to the detriment of at least *some*
other species. Beavers are natural. Consequently, if the greens wish
to prevent or reverse modification of the environment by humans,
the implication is that *humans are not animals.* Or that humans
are somehow not *natural.* If that is the case, can humans *ever*
achieve the status of "natural"? Do we need to lose our technology,
take off our clothes and eat bugs in order to be natural? How do
we *become* animals? Looks to me like this notion contradicts
evolution, so do the greens then oppose the teaching of evolution?
Might we see then the fundies and the greens join forces against
those who would teach science? That would be strange indeed
to see *those two guys* working together. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT