\\

[integer at www.god-emil.dk]

rok on andor not


Chomsky _weighs in_ 
(http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=11318358106
54&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes)  on the ID debate. This is a good 
example of  the way ID forces closet Postdarwinians back into the fold, lest the
y be 
tainted  by the dread association with the Bible Belt. You would think that 
Chomsky, once  an astute critic of Darwinism, wouldn<E2><80><99>t care at this p
oint, and 
skip trying to  court the last hopes of social approval with this obvious 
pretense. Am I wrong?  Has the man who revolutionized linguistics in a fashion 
that couldn<E2><80><99>t square  with Darwin given up?
Anyway to say that ID, or criticism of Darwin<E2><80><99>s theory,  is somehow a
iding 
global warning is false and irresponsible, it<E2><80><99>s the other way  around
. Darwin 
idiocy has actually made conservative criticism of science almost  viable. 
Chomksy apparently has read <E2><80><98>The Republican War on Science<E2><80>
<99>, an  important but 
flawed book, that simply didn<E2><80><99>t get it straight on  evolution.
If Chomksy takes this position then he should renounce his  linguistic 
claims. This will of course be denied as futile efforts are made to  Darwinize t
hese 
supposed breakthroughs of Chomsky.
Good way to fritter away  your life<E2><80><99>s work.  
In fact, the evolution of language is the theory breaker for natural  
selection. It is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the evolution of language using  selectio
nist 
arguments (as any student of the eonic effect will be stunned to  discover: We 
see how it works in historical times, more on that later, check _An 
Unexpected Challenge to Darwinism_ 
(http://www.history-and-evolution.com/2nd/chaptwo2_1_2.htm) ).  

Evolution, ecology and `malignant design<E2><80><99> 
Noam Chomsky says the Bush administration<E2><80><99>s hostility toward scientif
ic  
inquiry puts the world at risk of global-warming disaster 
Nov. 13, 2005. 01:00 AM 
NOAM CHOMSKY
SPECIAL TO THE STAR 
President George W. Bush favours teaching both evolution and <E2><80><9C>intelli
gent  
design<E2><80><9D> in schools, <E2><80><9C>so people can know what the debate is
 about.<E2><80><9D> 
To proponents, intelligent design is the notion that the universe is too  
complex to have developed without a nudge from a higher power than evolution or 
 
natural selection. 
To detractors, intelligent design is creationism - the literal interpretation 
 of the Book of Genesis - in a thin guise, or simply vacuous, about as  
interesting as <E2><80><9C>I don<E2><80><99>t understand<E2><80><9D> as has alwa
ys been true in the sciences  
before understanding is reached. 
Accordingly, there cannot be a <E2><80><9C>debate.<E2><80><9D> 
The teaching of evolution has long been difficult in the United States. Now,  
a national movement has emerged to promote the teaching of intelligent design 
in  schools. 
The issue has famously surfaced in a courtroom in Dover, Pa., where a school  
board is requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design in a 
 biology class - and parents mindful of the U.S. Constitution<E2><80><99>s churc
h/state  
separation have sued the board. 
In the interest of fairness, perhaps the president<E2><80><99>s speechwriters sh
ould  
take him seriously when they have him say that schools should be open-minded and
 
 teach all points of view. 
So far, however, the curriculum has not encompassed one obvious point of  
view: malignant design. Unlike intelligent design, for which the evidence is  
zero, malignant design has tonnes of empirical evidence, much more than  
Darwinian evolution, by some criteria: the world<E2><80><99>s cruelty. 
Be that as it may, the background of the current evolution/intelligent design 
 controversy is the widespread rejection of science, a phenomenon with deep 
roots  in American history that has been cynically exploited for narrow 
political gain  during the last 25 years. 
Intelligent design raises the question of whether it is intelligent to  
disregard scientific evidence about matters of supreme importance to the nation 
 
and the world - like global warming. 
An old-fashioned conservative would believe in the value of Enlightenment  
ideals - rationality, critical analysis, freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry -
 
 and would try to adapt them to a modern society. 
America<E2><80><99>s Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment, championed
 those  
ideals and took pains to create a constitution that espoused religious freedom 
 yet separated church and state. 
The United States, despite the occasional messianism of its leaders, isn<E2><80>
<99>t a  
theocracy. 
In our time, Bush administration hostility to scientific inquiry puts the  
world at risk. Environmental catastrophe, whether you think the world has been  
developing only since Genesis or for eons, is far too serious to ignore. 
In preparation for the G8 summit this past summer, the scientific academies  
of all eight member nations, joined by those of China, India and Brazil, 
called  on the leaders of the rich countries to take urgent action to head off 
global  warming. 
<E2><80><9C>The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently c
lear to  
justify prompt action,<E2><80><9D> their statement said. <E2><80><9C>It is vital
 that all nations  
identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to  
substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.<E2>
<80><9D> 
A few months earlier, at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Association  
for the Advancement of Science, leading U.S. climate researchers released <E2>
<80><9C>
the  most compelling evidence yet<E2><80><9D> that human activities are responsi
ble for 
global  warming, according to The Financial Times. 
They predicted major climatic effects, including severe reductions in water  
supplies in regions that rely on rivers fed by melting snow and glaciers. 
Other prominent researchers at the session reported evidence that the melting 
 of Arctic and Greenland ice sheets is causing changes in the sea<E2><80><99>s s
alinity  
balance that threaten <E2><80><9C>to shut down the Ocean Conveyor Belt, which tr
ansfers  
heat from the tropics toward the polar regions through currents such as the 
Gulf  Stream.<E2><80><9D> 
Like the statement of the National Academies for the G8 summit, <E2><80><9C>the 
most  
compelling evidence yet<E2><80><9D> received scant notice in the United States, 
despite the 
 attention given in the same days to the implementation of the Kyoto 
protocols,  with the most important government refusing to take part. 
It is important to stress <E2><80><9C>government.<E2><80><9D> The standard repor
t that the United  
States stands almost alone in rejecting the Kyoto protocols is correct only 
if  the phrase <E2><80><9C>United States<E2><80><9D> excludes its population, wh
ich strongly favours 
the  Kyoto pact (73 per cent, according to a July poll by the Program on  
International Policy Attitudes). 
Perhaps only the word <E2><80><9C>malignant<E2><80><9D> could describe a failure
 to acknowledge,  
much less address, the all-too-scientific issue of climate change. 
Thus, the <E2><80><9C>moral clarity<E2><80><9D> of the Bush administration exten
ds to its cavalier 
 attitude toward the fate of our grandchildren. 
Author and activist Noam Chomsky is a linguistics professor at the  
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.