Holy cow pies

If you are occasionally dragged down by the thought that religious conservatives are pushing creationism into the science curriculum of our public schools, it may provide some (mostly comic) relief to hear about religion masquerading as science in countries far away from our own. In the recent Wired News story Cattle, the Research Catalyst, we learn that Hindu fundamentalists have been busy researching the miraculous properties of cow waste. For example, “tests have shown that distemper made out of cow dung and spread over walls and roofs can block nuclear radiation.” Another researcher concludes that “cows’ urine can cure cancer, renal failure, arthritis and a lot of other ailments.”

I mention this not to laugh so much as shrug. It’s the same all over the world. The oldest stories are slowest to change because they are old. We would twist the world into a pretzel to make it match our convictions rather than see what is in front of us. The Cobb County biology book stickers say “This material should be approached with an open mind.” Open eyes help too.

2 thoughts on “Holy cow pies”

  1. (suppressed: ridiculously long line of exclamation marks to grab attention)

    The survey attached to the USAToday article reads as follows:

    How should evolution be taught in schools?
    ( )Teaching Charles Darwin’s findings as fact
    ( )Teaching Darwin’s findings as theory
    ( )Promote ‘intelligent design’
    ( )Do not teach evolution or creationism

    A. Darwin’s findings – i.e. differences in morphological features of organisms – are facts and are not in dispute. Rather, the conclusions he drew from those findings are not accepted by School Boards from Cobb County to Kansas. B. Findings are not theories, Q.E.D. C. Intelligent Design is contrary to Creationism insofar as it teaches unBiblical chronologies; therefore, a fourth choice of Non-evolutionary creation must be included to be “fair and balanced.” D. I love the last choice, especially since the last three words are superfluous.

  2. I always like how the scientific definition of a theory is never addressed in the evolution debate. People seem to forget that in science, a theory is actually something that has lots of data supporting it, and no data contradicting it. Oftentimes theories are used in situations where it is impossible to do direct experimentation, situations like evolution.

Comments are closed.