tools

From ABC News:

Somali pirates may be terrorizing the waters off of East Africa, but maybe they should pick their targets a little more carefully and stop targeting European warships.

Earlier today, some Somali pirates got a little too greedy and attacked the Spanish warship serving as the flagship for the European Union’s fleet of ships carrying out a counter-piracy mission off of Somalia.

Needless to say, it wasn’t a fair fight.

At first light Thursday, the Spanish warship ESPS Patino had just completed escorting a ship carrying food aid into the Somali capital of Mogadishu. In addition to a counter-piracy effort, the EU’s main mission is to escort freighters carrying food from the World Food Programme.

That’s when a skiff carrying six pirates sped towards the warship and the pirates began to fire their light-caliber weapons at the ship in an attemp to board it.

The Patino’s crew immediately began to fire back in self-defense and launched the ship’s helicopter.

The pirates realized they were outgunned and broke away from the attack, but eventually surrendered to the helicopter. But only after first throwing their weapons, ladder and fuel barrels overboard. …

Hmm, somehow this appears to be something closer to Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean that any real life pirate tale. I must wonder at what sort of logic convinces six people to attack a warship with light weapons!

copyright

From NBC Sports:

Poll: 43 percent of people think Tebow’s success is due to divine intervention … including 54 percent of Republicans

Who would have thought that a football player would be every bit as good a witness for Christ as many an evangelist? Here are some more statistics.

The numbers fluctuate greatly with the age of the respondent. But when it’s broken down between races, 50.5 percent of African-Americans said yes to divine intervention, to only 37.1 percent of Caucasians. And a whopping 81.3 percent of Hispanic respondents answered yes, God has a headset.

I freely admit I am one of those 81.3% Hispanics.

The comic above refers to an incident that happened during the Battle of the Bulge. Sixty-seven years ago today Allied soldiers were fighting a desperate battle to stop the Nazi attempt to break the encircling Allied Armies. It was an attempt that came too close to success for comfort. This battle was the largest and bloodiest battle fought. 89,000 soldiers were killed or wounded (19,000 dead).

In the middle of the worst part of the attack, that Nazis had encircled the 101st Airborne and Combat Command B of the 10th Armored Division in the town of Bastogne and ordered the general in charge to surrender. His answer became famous:

By 21 December the Germans had surrounded Bastogne, which was defended by the 101st Airborne Division and Combat Command B of the 10th Armored Division. Conditions inside the perimeter were tough—most of the medical supplies and medical personnel had been captured. Food was scarce, and by 22 December artillery ammunition was restricted to 10 rounds per gun per day. The weather cleared the next day, however, and supplies (primarily ammunition) were dropped over four of the next five days.

Despite determined German attacks, however, the perimeter held. The German commander, Lt. Gen. Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, requested Bastogne’s surrender. When Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st, was told of the Nazi demand to surrender, in frustration he responded, “Nuts!” After turning to other pressing issues, his staff reminded him that they should reply to the German demand. One officer, Lt. Col. Harry Kinnard, noted that McAuliffe’s initial reply would be “tough to beat.” Thus McAuliffe wrote on the paper, which was typed up and delivered to the Germans, the line he made famous and a morale booster to his troops: “NUTS!” That reply had to be explained, both to the Germans and to non-American Allies.

On Christmas Day 1944 the German divisions surrounding Bastogne attacked but were repulsed. But, while the Germans had surrounded Bastogne, General George Patton’s Third Army had started a difficult winter march to the rescue. On Christmas Day the 101st and the 10th repulsed the Germans. On St. Stephen’s Day Patton and the Third Army arrived and Bastogne was relieved.

Many years later, I was to serve as a medical laboratory specialist in the reference laboratories of the Third Army. At that time the Third Army Medical Laboratories were at Fort McPherson in East Pointe, Georgia.

rss

Yes, yes, I realize that the above is not really an Orthodox cartoon, but I could not resist it. As you know, the Denver Broncos won against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday during their playoff game. Now the Broncos go on to face the Patriots. What I had not caught was that:

Tebow completed 10 of 21 passes for a season-high 316 yards for a passer rating of 125.6 that is the highest in Broncos postseason history.

Yes, I had read that line. But, I must admit that it had not connected with me, as it did with the cartoonist who drew the above cartoon, that the 316 yards is a perfect analog to Mr. Tebow’s wearing of the 3:16 allusion to John 3:16 in the black sun protection on his lower eyelids. Also, I suspect that I would not have included Bill Maher in the cartoon. While it is true that he has been the anti-Tebow during the season, this appears to be a mite of inappropriate gloating.

Was God involved in that particular statistic? Frankly, I have no idea, but I know that it is dangerous to attribute matters to God unless there is clear and definite proof. Nevertheless, I cannot help a small giggle in my throat along with a sidelong glance up toward Heaven.

faq

Have a little fun with the cartoon above!

The view of evolution espoused above is an extreme one that would be rejected by most scientists, but it is one that is perhaps most often found in popular culture. Note that nature has been anthropomorphized. In straight secular evolutionary theory–which I do not agree with–there is no such thing as an “experimental phase” to nature. The viewpoint above turns nature into Nature, as though there were some type of semi-intelligence that is guiding evolution. More than that, it assumes that we are the culmination of evolution. Frankly, the purely secular evolutionist makes no such assumption. No, the viewpoint above demonstrates the desire for there to be meaning to life. The honest person who opines that secular evolution is the best explanation for what we see would say that there is no meaning to life, except perhaps what the person himself gives to it. Thus early 20th century writers, such as Albert Camus in books such as The Stranger and the French writer Jean Paul Sartre wrestled with what it meant to say that there is no meaning to life outside of what meaning we assign.

The reality is that purely secular evolutionary theory actually has several hypotheses about how the process worked. The agreement between them is in several link areas where all agree that the process took a certain path. The problem is that the real data available is somewhat limited. Note that having limited data does not mean that the conclusions are automatically questionable. Many would argue that there are enough signposts in the data to make it clear that the process of evolution is present, even though all the details are not worked out.

Christians are Creationists. That is, we believe that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. But, that does not mean that we agree on what process God used to do the creation. Was it a young-earth creationism? Was it a gap creationism? Was is a progressive creationism? Was it a day/age creationism? Was it a theistic evolutionary process? Is the understanding of Genesis 1 to be a cosmic time creationism? You can look up each of those terms and see what they mean. For instance, gap creationism was popularized in 1909 by the Scofield Reference Bible. Day/age creationism appears to be the view that was held by St. Augustine of Hippo. Cosmic time creationism is a new interpretation of the days of Genesis based on both Einstein’s theory of relativity and on quantum mechanics. I should note that various Christian groups have serious questions about whether theistic evolution should be classified as one of the creationist theories, but others say that since such a person clearly states that God began the universe out of nothing that they should be included within the creationist group. But, look it all up.

Meantime, look a the chart below if you want to see the spectrum of opinions on the subject of what was the process that got us here. The chart is just old enough that cosmic time creationism is not included.

After you have looked at the chart, it is very important that you note that Young Earth Creationists try to make the claim that literally everyone else in the chart is wrong. It is unfortunate that the chart included Flat Earthers. However, Geocentrists are still around, though in the minority, and are still active. For instance, the Creation Science Association of Mid-America is a Geocentrist organization that testified within the last 11 years before the State of Kansas to try to get their textbooks to drop all references to evolution. Young Earth Creationists are the ones who have drawn all the headlines. They are the ones who claim that no one, other than themselves, is faithful to Scripture. It is they who insist that only the way they interpret Scripture maintains the true authority of Scripture. Sadly, they are the ones who have lumped all Old Earth creationists into the class of Scripture-deniers. In doing so, they have actually done a tremendous disservice to the Body of Christ and caused even schisms within local churches by not just their unwillingness to accept  the possibility of any other creationist position but theirs, but also by their active condemnation and accusations of heresy against any who dare to disagree with them.

So, do research the different available positions. But, do also remember that to be a Christian is to believe that God created the universe out of nothing, as well as creating humanity. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” The rest is opinion about the process.

copyright

I went to a gun show here in Alabama today. It was just a few blocks from the church, and I thought it would be interesting to go there. People watching can be a most interesting hobby and it most certainly was today.

On the way in, I met a man with a gun strapped on. Before you become concerned, it was legal for him to have one as Alabama permits open-carry within certain bounds. But as we were talking, I realized that his gun was loaded. Since the gun show has a big sign saying that loaded guns are not permitted on the premises, I mention that to him. He appears befuddled and says that he will just have to unload it when he gets there. Sure enough, when he gets there, he pulls out his revolver and begins to unload it. Both the entrance person and a sheriff’s deputy yell at him to go outside to unload it. Meanwhile, he is vaguely moving the revolver around continuing to try to unload it. As he went out the door there were some uncomplimentary things said about him.

I had not realized that gun shows also seem to be partially flea markets. There were booths of people selling purses, leather journals, food, jewelry, etc. There were even booths that sold children’s toys. Of course there were the mandatory over-priced veteran gear from Viet Nam, Korea, and World War II. Being a veteran, I can never quite figure out why veteran’s gear tends to be so highly priced. I can remember looking forward to taking my boots off. I can remember how heavy a loaded backpack could be. Oh, there are a couple of bits of veteran gear that I would not mind having. Some of the jackets were nicely warm and so on. But, by and large I wonder whether the gear is really bought by non-veterans.

I see a young man who is over six feet talk and looks quite capable. And, he is wearing a kilt! But, not the normal kilt you see when someone is dressing up. This appears to be a “working” kilt. It is not in “clan” colors, but rather is a plain kilt, complete with what appear to be normal modern style desert-style camo pockets. I do notice that no one at the gun show even tries to make fun of that young man. But, it is something quite unusual to see here in the South.

In the back I can hear a high buzzing sound. As I wonder back that way, I see that it is a man demonstrating a tazer so strong that it visibly sparks. There is a sign saying that it is capable of putting out 2.5 million volts. That not only seems excessively high, but also seems to defeat the idea that a tazer is meant to be a purely defensive non-lethal weapon. Yes, I know that there is a difference between voltage and amperage and lethality, nevertheless . . . .

Most of the guns that are there are guns that, by and large, you have seen on television, either on hunting shows or police shows. But, there are also some guns that you could only see on specialty shows and some that I am surprised are legal to sell. For instance, who really needs a .50 caliber long-distance sniper rifle? Yes, I have seen those videos on YouTube that show someone hunting a mountain goat in the Rockies and killing it at a distance of a mile. But, really!!! If you are not aware, a rifle of that caliber is not simply meant to fire at a distance, it is meant to cause massive damage when it arrives. It is a war gun. Using it for hunting only guarantees that you might be able to save the head for stuffing, but, uhm, you had better not plan on doing much with the pelt or body. And, it is totally useless for self-defense, unless your definition of self-defense is not only killing the person but also endangering anyone behind the intruder for the next 1/4 mile or so. That gun has one, and only one, purpose. It is a war gun.

For the rest of it, a gun show simply reminded me of a flea market, but with armaments rather than with knick knacks. Just like a flea market, it is a mix of commercial sellers and mom & pop sellers. It has a bit of this and that. It has your regular everyday next door neighbor and some rather odd and interesting folk. People were haggling, trading, buying, and selling. It was a most interesting place to people watch. I think I will have to go to another one in the future.

Today is La Fiesta de los Reyes Magos, the Feast of the Three Kings. Now, you are probably saying, “wait, wait, today is the Feast of the Epiphany!” Well, uhm, yes you would be completely correct, and in church that is the feast that is being celebrated. However, in popular Latino culture, the practice is a little different.

In Latino families that keep the old customs, this is the day when we remember the Three Kings bringing gifts to the Christ child. In a sense, it does go with the Epiphany. The Epiphany is the feast which remembers the revealing of the Lord Jesus Christ at his Baptism. In the Feast of the Three Kings, Our Lord Jesus is revealed as a King of Kings by the obeisance of three other Kings. Just like the Epiphany, the Feast of the Three Kings speaks of making it clear that Jesus is more than what he seems.

But, it is also a time that the children love. A couple of days before the feast, children write letters to their favorite king asking for what presents they would like to receive. Finally, in the eve of the feast, on the 5th of January, the images of the Three Kings are added to the Nativity scene that every family would have. By this time, the excitement of the children is at fever pitch. In some families, hay is put out for the camels of the kings, and cookies and milk for the kings themselves.

It used to be that children would receive their gifts only on this day. By now USA culture has spread so deeply into other cultures that even in Spain the children now receive gifts on both days and not just on 6 January. But, originally the Feast of the Nativity was a solemn observance, not a family holiday. The family holiday was today, and the twelve days between Christmas and Epiphany were indeed the Twelve Days of Christmas, just like in olden times.

Now being Orthodox, I realize the importance in Orthodoxy of the Feast of the Epiphany. But, there is still plenty of Latino in me. Even while celebrating the Epiphany, I must admit that my mind remembers being a child in Cuba and remembers Los Tres Reyes Magos and remembers the excitement and, yes, the gifts. And so, with apologies to my father confessor, I hope that you had a wonderful Feast of the Three Kings.

As I quoted in an post several months ago, the position of the OCA on self-defense is that the Evangelical counsels of the Church consider “turning the other cheek” as being the ideal for a Christian. Nevertheless, as the article points out, in this fallen and damaged world this is not always either possible or perhaps even the best option. But, let me quote from the OCA website as I did in my article back on 12 July.

Christ taught that perfection requires the love of enemies and the absolute renunciation of resisting evil by evil. Thus if a man will be perfect he will renounce the relative values of this world totally and will not participate in any act which is morally ambiguous. In this way, for example, the Church forbids the bearing of arms to its clergy and does not allow a man to continue in the ministry who has shed blood, theoretically even in an accidental way!

However, the Orthodox Church follows Christ and the apostles in teaching that the relative and morally ambiguous life of this world requires the existence of some form of human government which has the right and even the duty to “wield the sword” for the punishment of evil. …

When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

Why do I bring this up these many months later? Well, there is a news story that came out two days ago that brings out how difficult some of these decisions can truly be.

On Christmas Day, 18-year-old Sarah McKinley lost her husband to lung cancer, leaving her the sole caregiver to their three-month-old son.

On New Year’s Eve, the Oklahoma mother proved she was anything but defenceless after she shot and killed an intruder breaking into her home, the Daily Mail reports. …

After her husband’s funeral the previous week, a man named Justin Martin stopped by Ms McKinley’s house, claiming he was a neighbour and only wanted to introduce himself.

Ms McKinley, 18, was suspicious. She said he was calling late at night, when it was ‘pitch black outside.’

Martin returned on New Year’s Eve, this time in the middle of the day and armed with a hunting knife and an accomplice – a man identified as 29-year-old Dustin Stewart.

The new mother told KOCO News that the men started knocking aggressively on her door, Martin in front and Stewart in the back.

She described to the Oklahoma station what she did: ‘I walked over and got the 12-gague, went in the bedroom and got the pistol, put the bottle in his mouth, and then I called 911.’

Ms McKinley asked the 911 dispatcher what to do should the two men break in.

‘I’ve got two guns in my hand – is it okay to shoot him if he comes in the door?’ she said.

‘I’m in here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?’ …

‘I can’t tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby,’ the dispatcher told her.

Ms McKinley was on the phone with two dispatchers – which represented two neighbouring counties – for a total of 21 minutes.

Around 2pm, Martin kicked in the door and Ms McKinley shot him once in the torso. Since police said the shooting was in self-defence, she will not be charged.

Police found Martin, 24, slumped over a floral-print sofa with a single gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

I want you to look past the political arguments to the human situation. Here is an 18 year old “girl” who is already a widow. She was legally and morally married. And then her husband comes down with cancer and dies, during Christmastide yet! Within a week of his death, she is assaulted and is in danger of her life. But, more than that, her baby’s life is in danger. So, she pulled the trigger. I do have one small question, and one that is not really being addressed by the news media. How did it ever take more than 21 minutes for any law enforcement officer to show up? Frankly, if I were the police chief, or sheriff, I would promptly launch an investigation as to the slow response.

But, that is not the point of this post. What should be my response as a priest? What should I tell that fully adult woman if she were to come to me for confession? The OCA makes it clear:

When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

I must ask that young woman to repent of killing someone. Now, before you get angry with me, let me point out that I must do the same with any soldier that returns from war, having killed someone(s). The taking of a human life is considered to be a terrible thing in Scripture, even when it would be considered as a “justified” killing. Life is created by God and must never be lightly taken. Even when it must be taken–read the OCA statement above–it can only be taken with regret. The OCA clearly states the Orthodox position, that because of the fallen and damaged nature of the world it becomes necessary to have governments that have the power of the sword. Nevertheless, the power of the sword does not mean that killings can be done with no regret and with impunity. Rather, the Orthodox position–according to the OCA–is that we are to call people to regret the taking of a life and to repent of it, in order that their souls may not be seared and in order that they may not become accustomed to killing but may learn that taking a life is–at best–the lesser of two evils.

Having a seared soul is probably not the problem with this woman. But, it can certainly become a problem with those who are members of law enforcement agencies and of the military. A priest needs to call police personnel and soldiers to repentance in order to prevent them from becoming so seared that they commit an atrocity without even a moral qualm. The call to confession reminds the soldier that though they have God’s permission to use the sword, nevertheless, God’s intention was never for human beings to die. That is why Cain receives such a scolding from God. The soul that cannot regret the taking of a human life, that cannot ache for the necessity of doing so, that can simply keep walking without a problem, is in deep danger of becoming a seared soul.

But, but, but, I must admit that I am a sinner. I would have a very difficult time calling this “girl” to repentance. There is even a part of me that would wish to say, “Good shot!” I must admit that I doubt that I would have the wisdom necessary in order to apply the Evangelical counsels of the Church correctly. Frankly, I would need some serious help from the Holy Spirit in order to correctly carry out my calling and duty as a priest.

Yesterday, I commented that science is based on the clash of competing theories as well as experimental studies. However, sometimes the studies lead into subjects that cross over into our understanding of history. One such subject is the study of the origins of history. Archeology magazine writes the following in an article:

Debate about the origins of syphilis has continued for nearly 500 years, ever since early sixteenth-century Europeans blamed each other, referring to it variously as the Venetian, Naples, or French disease. One hypothesis assumes a New World origin, and holds that sailors who accompanied Columbus and other explorers brought the disease back to Europe. Another explanation is that syphilis was always present in the Old World but was not identified as a separate disease from leprosy before about A.D. 1500. A third possibility is that syphilis developed in both hemispheres from the related diseases bejel and yaws. New studies by paleopathologists Bruce and Christine Rothschild favor a New World origin.

The article further states:

. . . they examined 687 skeletons from archaeological sites in the United States and Ecuador ranging in age from 400 to 6,000 years. Populations to the south (New Mexico, Florida, and Ecuador) proved to have syphilis, while those to the north (Ohio, Illinois, and Virginia) had yaws. By contrast, examination of 1,000 Old World skeletons dated to before contact with the New World revealed no cases of syphilis. This suggests that syphilis was first present in the New World and was later brought to the Old World. Furthermore, the Rothschilds found that the earliest yaws cases in the New World collections were at least 6,000 years old, while the first syphilis cases were at least 800 years old and perhaps more than 1,600 years old. This suggests that syphilis may be a New World mutation of yaws, which has a worldwide distribution. The occurrence of the same mutation giving rise to syphilis independently in the New and Old worlds seems unlikely.

When I was younger, I was taught that both smallpox and syphilis were of Old World origin. In fact, both diseases were used as examples of how the incoming invaders brought corruption and deliberate germ warfare to the New World. It appears that what I was told may have been only half right. There is undoubted evidence in history of the accidental killing of Native Americans by way of encounter with Old World peoples. One such example comes from the South American Missionary Society, now called the Society of Anglican Missionaries and Senders. Their history records an entire tribe on the tip of South America wiped out as a result of missionary activity! Sadly, the missionaries brought with them a disease to which they were mostly immune but to which the tribal people had no resistance. I served with that missionary society in the 1990′s, the memory of which I am proud. But, it was from them that I learned that bit of their own history.

But, in the USA there is also a history of the deliberate taking of blankets corrupted with smallpox to Native American tribes in order to conduct a primitive form of biological warfare. For instance in 1763 Lord Amherst writes to one of his generals approving a plan to “extirpate that execrable race” by giving them tainted blankets. Some had thought that syphilis was also one of the Old World “gifts” to the New World. Remember that it was considered to be an Old World disease by the very Europeans themselves.

But, the study quoted above is one of several studies that point out that Native Americans may have harbored a disease to which the Old World conquistadors and illegal immigrants were completely susceptible. If this theory of the origin of syphilis is true, then the New World and the Old World traded diseases. Smallpox came here from the Old World while syphilis went to the Old World from here. There is a certain symmetry in that. And, it might mean that both smallpox and syphilis were unintended consequences of the meeting of two cultures that had been totally separated for centuries. That type of history continues on to this day. Diseases such as HIV and Ebola virus both seem to have originated on another continent, but been brought to the USA by travelers. Such is one of the unintended consequences of globalization.

There are, of course, many who argue that syphilis is an Old World disease, and there are some rather good arguments for that as well. Syphilis well points out the problems of trying to track down the origins of a disease. The outward symptoms of syphilis, particularly in the third stage, overlap some of the ancient descriptions of leprosy. On the other hand, yaws is caused by an organism in the same genus as syphilis and is found in the warm areas of the New World as well as Africa. You can see how the argument can go back and forth as to whether this is a New Word mutation or an Old World mutation or a dual mutation.

This points out some of the difficulties that face scientists as they try to explain the origins of disease and even the origins of the Earth and of the solar system, etc. On the other hand, the study also gives indirect evidence to the continuing development that is found within science and the clashes that help scientists to develop the best explanations of observed reality. Because of the unknowns in a disease as well known as syphilis, the wrong approach would be to focus only on the unknowns in order to claim that any theory of the beginnings of syphilis is automatically false and that an alternate untested theory must be taught alongside the studied theories.

store

One of the things that most people do not understand about science is that one of the ways in which an accurate understanding of what we see, touch, hear, etc., is reached is by proposing alternate theories that try to explain what we see, touch, hear, etc. Then those alternate theories are tested against each other, by way of experiments and/or reasonable analysis until the results of the experiments and the analyses points more and more toward one of the theories (or none of them, in which case scientists start over).

The misunderstanding is that all too many people think that because there are different and competing theories means that science really knows nothing. That is, most people fail to notice that this method of competing theories has slowly led us to the development of the laptop on which I am writing, the Internet which makes blogging possible, etc. You see, the clash of competing theories allows for the more accurate theory to come out. Then a new clash ensues, and a better theory emerges. Sometimes, the clash is so violent that the preceding theory is completely thrown out and everything that we thought we knew on that subject is changed.

That type of event is called a paradigm shift. However, that type of major event is rare. Most of the time the changes are refinements or expansions on previously existing understandings. Even paradigm shifts do not fully wipe out what came before. For instance, the Einsteinian revolution in the conception of space/time did not invalidate the basic findings of Isaac Newton. To this day, for many basic daily mechanical calculations, Newtonian physics are as accurate as needed. But, when you get out to the level of GPS satellites, Newtonian physics no longer work for allowing GPS receivers to accurately calculate our locations on the surface of the Earth. You see, while Newtonian physics allow us to quite handily calculate orbits around the Earth, it takes Einsteinian space/time relativity to correctly calculate positions. It turns out that a clock in satellite runs slower in relation to the Earth than a clock on Earth. Thus, every GPS receiver has an adjustment, based on Einstein, that calculates the adjustment needed. And there are ways to adjust GPS satellite clocks periodically. But all that is to say that even as major a paradigm shift as general relativity did not totally undo the advances of prior centuries.

The problem today, I repeat, is that people think that just because they can quote a disagreement or because they know one or two holes in a theory that this means that they have clearly shown how bad the theory is. The reality is that the clash of theories means more than just being able to quote a disagreement. The clash is resolved by carrying out multiple experiments, by working on multiple mathematical models to see what results they predict, by looking at the long-term implications of certain theories and predicting what testable results we should see if that theory were to be true. More than that, it means that just claiming conspiracy theories or just pointing out some flaws is insufficient to claim that you have disproved a particular scientific theory. You cannot just point out flaws in someone else’s theory, you must actively prove that your theory is better and actively disprove the other.

And that is the main problem with the many people who say that in school we should “teach the controversy.” What they mean is that as long as they disagree with a particular theory then the school is duty bound to “teach the controversy.” However, I just commented that merely pointing out flaws is insufficient to disprove a theory. That is only sufficient for arguing that definitions need to be tightened up or some alternate pathways need to be considered. When teaching the controversy is merely based on clever argumentation, without significant amounts of confirmatory data, then there is no controversy, there is only endless philosophical debate whose sole purpose is to obfuscate and delay and cause sufficient “political” problems that the other side finally yields.

Mere controversy is insufficient to force the “teaching of the controversy.” If that approach were true, then schools would have to teach any of several theories of many issues. For instance, can you imagine a medical school being forced to teach every theory on the origins of certain diseases, regardless of whether the main consensus was on one particular theory? Would you care to be treated by physicians who had been told that many possible theories on [fill in the blank] were true and that many types of treatment were equally valid and could possibly be equally helpful? No, even the teaching the controversy folk do not want that type of medical training or that type of healthcare. They merely insist that on certain limited subjects, the principles of science must be suspended so that their pet theory, and only their pet theory, is taught as an alternative to the main consensus.

And that is what I have against the approach of the “teach the controversy” folk.

partner