The blogs are all a twitter on the distribution of an odd memo by Warren Chisum, the chair of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, probably the most powerful of all the committees.
The memo says quite a bit, but perhaps the most novel claim is that the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is wrong. To say so is to discredit religion positions on the subject, which is just what got Galileo house arrest at the end of his life. It also claims, and I've heard this elsewhere, that since science makes claims that touch on religious doctrine, it can be treated as a religion and tax payer funding of it can be cut since it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
Chisum is apologizing for the memo now, because it contains anti-semitic language, but a couple of points ought to be raised.
First, is this a wise move on the part of the creationist movement? It is clear that these individuals are part of the creationist movement as well and see the heliocentric model of the universe as the base upon which evolution and other challenges to religious doctrine rests. Evolution rests on the interpretation of existing matter and attempts to work backward and determine how we got to where we are. I can see how one can question this since you can't "see" the process, but one can see the motion of stars and planets and the earth and determine in a more substantive manner how they move in relationship to each other. Is this a fight they really want to take on? Will they end up losing credibility from some of its supporters? Does the movement then risk losing viability as a political force?
Second, could this controversy be useful since it reminds people why scientific principles hold what they hold? I'm no astronomer, so I could not walk you through the helio and geocentric models of the cosmos, but I'm now curious about it because the issue has been raised, In 2301 we would have briefly discussed John Stuart Mill's ideas in On Liberty. Mill argues that one must understand what thier beliefs rest upon, and if a challenge to one's beliefs forces a re-examination, that's fine.
What do you think?
