Easy As Falling Off a Bike pt 3188

Printer-friendly version
The Daily Dormouse.
(aka Bike, est. 2007)
Part 3188
by Angharad

Copyright© 2017 Angharad

  
023_0.JPG

This is a work of fiction any mention of real people, places or institutions is purely coincidental and does not imply that they are as suggested in the story.
*****

It was with an air of uncertainty that I entered the hallowed halls of learning. Last night my reading of Darwin’s biography showed that he spent more time shooting birds or collecting insects than studying and he eventually came good but then he was of independent means, I doubt that was something which would apply to many of our students. At least the departments of Oxbridge are no longer run by ordained priest professors, not that I went there or ever wished to. We’ve had several prime ministers who were Oxbridge graduates and they seem to have been just as stupid as those who studied elsewhere.

Some of the people who gave Darwin such grief after his publishing of, On the Origin of Species were several of his previous professors at Cambridge who were serious god-botherers, such as Richard Owen who set up the Natural History Museum in South Kensington, who refused to accept Darwin’s theory because he believed the bible was the unmitigated word of god and thus unquestionable.

I suppose we know so much better today about the bible and evolution by natural selection and, those who choose to believe tend to accept both, though they know the bible is the work of many hands and written well after Jesus’ supposed death by people who weren’t witnesses to any of what they describe, which shows all sorts of contradictions or omissions from the different gospels. So most Christians accept that the bible is frequently allegorical and that science, especially genetics, shows that evolution is fact; only a relatively small number refute it on religious grounds which demonstrates their inability to use critical thinking if not pure denial of facts in preference of mythological stories. When I meet one, I’m never sure whether I want to laugh or cry at their delusions.

I found out at the lecture I did for Dr Simpkins, who owes me one big time, that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t accept evolution. The young woman involved put up her hand after I asked if anyone had any questions—I’d just run through the process of natural selection and thrown in some anecdotes about Darwin having just read three books on him. She announced that it was all nonsense because god had created everything perfectly so things didn’t need to mutate and that the millions of years I referred to didn’t exist either, the earth was only four thousand years old and so on.

It’s a while since I’ve been challenged by someone who believed without evidence something which had evidence. The class went very quiet for a moment before arguments flew back and fore. It seemed she had a friend who got even rattier than she did when students began telling them they were mistaken and to get real.

I allowed it to go on for several minutes because I really couldn’t believe it had happened and as one of the other students shouted at her, “If you don’t believe in genetics and evolution wtf are you doing a biology degree for?” a question which crossed my mind, I tried to make out her answer but it was drowned out in the ensuing din.

When I could hear what she was saying, it was rehearsed cant not genuine argument, dogma not reason. They’re all brainwashed early on in their entry to their sect. I just felt sorry for her as science was always likely to cause her strife with her beliefs and I felt sure that if she pursued her course she would end up questioning her beliefs more than the science but that was her problem, mine was wrapping up this lecture and getting back to my office for a badly needed cuppa.

As I finished one of the technicians came up to me and asked if that was for real—the argument about evolution. I stated that I thought it was. They admitted they couldn’t believe what they had just witnessed. I shrugged and hightailed back to my office and sanctuary.

I was mistaken. Diane came in with the much needed drink and a piece of paper detailing the call she’d just taken. The girl’s mother had just phoned complaining that I had allowed her daughter to be bullied by the rest of the class over her refusal to believe one man’s theory over god’s work. She demanded that I apologise to her daughter and refund her fees because I was only teaching half the course if I left out the divine creation. Her daughter was very upset and she was very angry.

Diane had pulled the girl’s file so I had a name and address. Diane also informed me that she looked forward to typing the letter to see how I dealt with it because she wouldn’t like it. I called Tom and he suggested we discuss it over dinner, he’d collect me at twelve. No wonder Simpkins went sick if she knew this girl was in her class.

I asked Diane for another cuppa and with a chocolate hobnob in one hand and my fountain pen in the other, I drafted a letter quite quickly. I checked the university handbook and discovered that refunds after a term has started are not offered, especially for one that was over a month started and besides the fees are paid annually not by term and she had had loads of time to discover the course wasn’t for her and she could have switched courses to one with which she wasn’t in conflict.

By the time Tom arrived, I’d drafted the letter, all two pages of it quoting chapter and verse from the student handbook and stating our position and telling her she’d left it too late to object, especially on grounds which she knew would be contentious.

I admit I have had objectors to evolution on the course before but it’s been a while and I also know I’ve had loads of people who have faiths, including girls wearing hajibs or is it niqabs? Who completed the course, got their degrees and made no effort to say if their religion contradicted what I or my staff were teaching them. In the series Richard Dawkins did he spoke with Dr Rowan Williams who was then Archbishop of Canterbury who accepted evolution but fudged it a bit by suggesting it was how his god worked.

Lunch with Tom was okay, it’s a while since I had my tuna jacket potato and salad. He read my letter and told me I was more gentle than he’d have been, he’d have pointed out the girl’s delusions to her before suggesting she go away and consider if the course was really for her. I pointed out that I had done just that in the letter. He told me to expect criticism from the family and other members of the sect via letters in the press and so on.

I told him that didn’t worry me and he pointed out that the letters they’ll write won’t be about the incident but how we’ve hounded her out of the university because of her religion.

“But that would be deception,” I protested.

“Aye but tae them, a’ is fair in love an’ war an’ religion.”

“I’ll sue for defamation.”

“Aye weel guid luck,” was his reply.

05Dolce_Red_l_0.jpg

up
226 users have voted.
If you liked this post, you can leave a comment and/or a kudos! Click the "Thumbs Up!" button above to leave a Kudos

Comments

Singleminded thinking

I was subjected to "The Bible is The Pure Inerrant Word of God" for a good part of my life and was roundly criticized if I did not tow the line. Now days I see that argument as pretty narrow minded, but do believe in a role for an intelligent creator, though he is not sharing his plan. We can explain quite a lot with science if we do not get as narrow minded as the Bible thumpers.

We've just had two more shootings because people can not come to an agreement. Waiting for my time to be up.

Fanatics come in all sizes and colors......

D. Eden's picture

But it has been my experience that they all fixate on a narrow belief with little to no factual basis. It doesn't matter how wrong that belief may be, most refuse to allow any other thought or teaching to pass their ears or eyes. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, and it is their duty to correct them.

In my experience, this "correction" is often done by killing innocent people, pour encourager les autres.

There are of course fanatical beliefs which are based on scientific fact; but as all fanatics, those who believe refuse to listen to any argument or fact which does not agree with their singular belief. Thus they are just as bad as their religiously indoctrinated brethren.

Unfortunately, many of these fanatical people gravitate toward religions as they are faith based rather than fact based, which fits the fanatics personality well. Even more unfortunately, there is a preponderance of fanatics in third world countries - probably owing to the low level of education, and the fact that in many cases the only education that they do receive is religious in nature and thus designed to support, rather than repute, their fanatical beliefs.

It is an annoying fact that there are many in this world who have no qualms about using the ignorant and their fanatical beliefs in order to further their own twisted ambitions. History shows us that this is nothing new, and it will probably never end.

D

D. Eden

Dum Vivimus, Vivamus

Door knockers

Let me start by saying, I have friends who are Jehovah's. That said, no bigger group of idiots walk the face of our 4 million year old planet Earth than Jehovah's Witnesses. How anyone can believe that 4000 yrs ago God waved a wand and in 6 days made the Earth and all those on it's surface? Stupidity. If God was that great, why not in one day, why the seventh to rest? The seventh day was so organized religions had us for themselves, no golf, no beach, no sports, just prayer worship.

Ang, you got me going.

Karen

The first thing I would ask

The first thing I would ask anyone who claims 4,000 years, when FOSSIL PROOF stares them in the face; is this one thing.
HOW LONG is a DAY in GOD's time frame? Is it 24 hours (human time)? 6 months? One year ? 200 years? a Thousand years? a Million years? or heaven forbid a Billion years? IT DOES NOT SAY IN THE BIBLE!!!
Kinda makes a person want to go Hmmmmmm? Does it not?
Second thing: Cain, AFTER he killed his brother Able, went off to the Land of Nod and took a wife there (married a woman). According to the Genesis Stories (Yes, there ARE actually TWO starts to that Story);
Adam and Eve were the FIRST man and First woman, then they had Cain and Able. So again, WHERE did this woman come from?
IT DOES NOT SAY IN THE BIBLE!!!

Not only Darwin but even the great Peter Scott ...

... had a past in which shooting wildfowl figured. Scott even used to stalk wildfowl with a punt gun (a huge gun fitted on a punt and intended for wholesale slaughter of birds on the water). For those who don't know of Scott he was the son of Scott of the Antarctic and went on to found the Slimbridge, Gloucestershire based wildfowl trust and had a particular interest in Bewick swans. He was also a fine artist (his mother was a sculptor).

He's of interest to me because of his sailing and gliding prowess at national and international competition rather than natural history but it's interesting how a fascination with killing evolves into a fascination for the prey itself and it's place in ecology. I suppose it was the times. Things I did as a child (birds nesting, shooting anything that moved with my air rifle) were what 'everyone' did in the 1940/50s and I wouldn't dream of doing now.

It does always surprise how people accept things as true with no evidence over things for which there's overwhelming evidence. Religion barely makes it to a hypothesis never mind a theory. Cathy's going to have fun with a Jehovah's Witness on a biology course. I know I do when they come knocking on the door :)

Robi

Religion

Teresa L.'s picture

is a touchy subject to some. i have all the respect in the world for someones beliefs, until they start to infringe on others rights, beliefs, etc. have your beliefs, but do your job. if it REALLY is a violation of those beliefs, quit, move on, whatever, dont drag others into your mire of thinking.

****************WARNING IMPENDING RANT ABOUT FAKE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS****************************

a PUBLIC official/employee/servant should NEVER be allowed to put their PERSONAL beliefs above the law, or legal standings, period. no personal belief should be used to discriminate, hurt, etc anyone else. once you do, you forfeit any respect i have for you, period.

i believe in some kind of greater being, i DO NOT believe any group of men could understand that being, its wishes, wants, demands, etc. i am a deist, like a lot of the founding fathers of this nation, NOT christian. i was driven away by so many peoples VIEW of what their beliefs SHOULD be verses what they said/did/read/etc.

christians who do NOT believe in medical care should be allowed that right, AS AN ADULT, choosing for themselves. NOT forcing it on a child, and unfortunately, here in the US there are STILL 6 states with "religious shelter laws" that allow this to happen still today. it was more, but a lot finally saw how wrong this was. you look at the graveyards of these communities, the CHILDREN outnumber the adults. and ANY religion that allows harm to others NOT of your religion at the VERY least (but it should include YOUR own brethren in faith also) should NOT be allowed to practice that faith in any decent society. your freedom of religion does NOT override our human rights laws, cruelty, abuse etc.

any faith that MAKES MONEY over and above what it needs for maintenance, and help programs is NOT a true christian faith (looking at most mega churchs, all the televangelists, etc. i dont know a SINGLE religion that calls for super fancy buildings (the church, according to christ is the PEOPLE, not a building) mansions, private planes, limo's etc to be a real person of god/faith, that is NOT a fraud in some way. its NOT true christianity, its commercialized christ lite. the focus HATE against groups to get people to GIVE them money, most of which does NOT go towards the stated goals, but towards the "person of faith" comfort, etc.

sorry for the rant, i will get down off my soap box now

Teresa L.

Not much you can say to a zealot.

Fact and evidence based arguments don't impress them and if they won't listen to reason there isn't really much purpose to talking to them. I'd have preferred for Cathy to simply say that "this class is about the SCIENCE of biology and while you may find your mythology interesting it is not part of the curriculum."

Both sides have zealots

The evolution side have their share of poles up their arses type too. At the mere mention that there is even a remote chance of some kind of deity (not even a non-omnipotent one) you can virtually see their hackles rising and you know they are ready to bite your head off.

The Scopes Trial All Over Again

littlerocksilver's picture

The verdict was wrong but the outcome over the years has been pretty good; however, the reality deniers persist. That's the trouble with too many beliefs. They tend to obscure reality.

Portia

I think

I would have stopped that whole discussion early on, not let the students argue among them selves. And then my answer would simply be, "I teach evolution in this class, the instruction regarding religious beliefs is not part of this university's curriculum. You can go to your church to get educated on that and then make a decision for yourself of which one you believe to be the truth, or even better, find a way for you to be comfortable with the two co-existing." And if Cathy wanted to be involved in it to any extent after that, she could invite her to ask questions about conflicts between the two - although that might get confrontational.