"Monkey processes" and brainwashing

The New Monkey Trial. It seems that the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools may be banned somewhere in the United States. In 1925, the so-called "Monkey Trial" took place, in which American teacher John Scopes was found guilty of teaching Darwin's theory in violation of Tennessee state laws. Although Scopes formally lost, during this trial, it was possible to demonstrate the absurdity of anti-scientific laws. It would seem that in our enlightened times, such situations cannot exist at all. And yet. To solve the problem they faced, Christian fundamentalists created a movement called scientific creationism. Their typical argumentation is built in two steps. First, creationists challenge the scientific explanation of a particular problem. Most often (besides deception), they use the confusion of modern evolutionism (a whole group of theories) with classical Darwinism. Second, they assert that the Bible contains the exhaustive explanation of the diversity of life and the geological history of the Earth. The fact that evidence from authority (whether divine or human) is insufficient for a scientific theory is disregarded. However, the image of "scientificness" allows creationists to claim the right to present their views in secular institutions. New hopes for supporters of this approach are associated with President Bush's conservative policy in education. Currently, for example, in many American schools, teenagers are not taught how to prevent pregnancy and venereal diseases, but are unsuccessfully urged to maintain chastity until marriage. In May, the Kansas State Department of Education began hearings on revising educational programs. This was insisted upon by public organizations concerned about the atheistic orientation of modern evolutionary theory and demanding its prohibition or restriction. So far, the event consists of presenting the characteristic arguments of "scientific creationists." The debate is organized in the form of a court hearing with cross-examination of witnesses. Most scientists, of course, ignore the process, as scientific truth cannot depend on a court decision, nor on the Holy Scripture. The outcome of the hearings will be summarized in the summer. Is this discussion important for those not directly involved? Humanity stands on the brink of a serious revolution in its relationship with nature. Perhaps people will manage to transition to sustainable development without significant losses, or perhaps these changes will be catastrophic. In any case, an unbiased look at our own human nature will help us avoid the critical point. Which society will adapt to the new conditions: one that thinks scientifically or one that adheres to dogmas thousands of years old? What is more adequate: to consider the relationship between humans and the biosphere taking into account their prehistory, or to interpret current processes as a test of obedience? By all accounts, the fundamentalists' attempt to control science is not so innocent. Clerical Mimicry It has happened! Hearings on the issue of teaching the theory of evolution in Kansas have concluded. By a six-to-four vote, the State Board of Education has introduced the study of the "intelligent design" viewpoint into the school biology curriculum. The struggle of so-called scientific creationists to give their views an academic image has ended in victory in at least one "flagship of democracy" state. But why do the losing side – the evolutionists – perceive such a decision as a step towards the destruction of science? They are accused of trying to silence opponents – are they really against the possibility of expressing opinions by representatives of all viewpoints? Of course not. Evolutionists are not against preaching faith. The problem is that modern creationism has nothing to do with science, but claims to be studied as a scientific theory. This is a project of biblical fundamentalists who are trying to overcome the separation of church and state, legally enshrined in the US and many other countries. There are people who are convinced that if God had deemed it necessary for them to know about evolution, he would have indicated it in the Covenant – they are not interested in scientific data. There are others who take generally known facts and begin to manipulate them to lead to the assertion that they correspond to the same Covenant (while trying to discredit those who interpret these facts differently). It is these latter who are gradually gaining new positions in public consciousness. Science is a way of interpreting facts. No one can dictate where scientific research should lead – it will go where reality leads it. But people who claim that all truth is contained in the Holy Scripture want to be considered scientists too (one can only admire the authority of scientific knowledge!). Unfortunately, the activity of biblical fundamentalists leads not only to their appropriation of part of science's authority. They manage to distort, if not science itself, then at least its perception in society. Have you encountered the assertion that the expediency and origin of organisms are explained by two theories: Darwinian and creationist? This is deception! Creationism is not science, and there are not one or two scientific theories, and Darwinism is generally a theory from the middle of the previous century (biology has not stood still since then). Unfortunately, the false alternative "Darwin or God," imposed by fundamentalists, turns out to be a simple solution for both the media and people far from biology. The fight "against Darwin" turns into a fight not against the theory of evolution, but against rigor and honesty of thought. A bad beginning is half the trouble. In the states of Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, it is required that schools report on creationist criticism of the theory of evolution. The issue, of course, is not about studying theoretical problems and scientific discussions (which develop the mind and free it from narrow-mindedness), but only about promoting the same supposedly scientific approach. Scientific truth is not sought in sacred texts. Religious truth does not need to be proven: it is given in Revelation. What would happen to faith if there were an opportunity to "scientifically" (with facts and experiments) prove the existence of God? This does not prevent the creationists' propaganda project from winning in court and shaping consumer opinion (and not only in the US, there is no less activity in the former USSR). Overcoming the Energy Crisis: Another Failure! Perhaps not all CT readers know that the presidential elections in Ukraine decided their future fate. And the main issue was not at all who would become president – the fate of world energy was at stake. One of the most exotic candidates for the presidency of Ukraine was Natalia Vitrenko, leader of the Progressive Socialist Party (her role is often defined as "Zhirinovsky in a skirt," although this is probably an unjustified narrowing of a broader stage image). During the election campaign, Vitrenko announced that she had commissioned a "collective of leading scientists and specialists from the military-industrial complex and the space industry of the former USSR" to solve the energy problem facing humanity. Next, it is worth quoting Natalia Mikhailovna herself: "The developers have completed the task. They have developed a completely new type of power plant – helio-aerobaric thermal power plants, which will generate electricity not by burning natural resources, but by using renewable resources – solar radiation and wind energy. ... The price of a kilowatt-hour of such energy is one cent." Vitrenko planned to reorient Ukraine's industry to produce new power plants "in variations from a small suitcase to 2 MW." What the unit "MW" means is not explained; there are suggestions that it refers to MegaGigaWatts (which is a lot). In addition to "HAB TES," Vitrenko simultaneously solved the problem of automotive fuel, promising a transition to environmentally friendly renewable fuel. But the described technological breakthrough could only happen under one condition. The developers of the generator (about whom Vitrenko is "absolutely convinced" that they will become Nobel laureates) agreed to disclose their discovery only if Natalia Mikhailovna was elected President of Ukraine. As Vitrenko herself reported, otherwise the inventors will keep their discovery secret (so that it does not fall "into the hands of oligarchs, charlatans, and American spies"). By the way, after the first round of elections, the situation changed. Vitrenko, who had previously convincingly accused Yanukovych's criminal regime, realized that the country needed such a leader and managed to "convince" the inventors. Unfortunately, Ukraine got a different president, and humanity remained in the grip of an energy crisis. What is the bottom line? It is not worth wasting time on exposing hopes to solve all problems at once, and for free. "At the Tsar's command" is an archetype ingrained in the flesh and blood of Homo postsoveticus. But it turns out that a political campaign for voters who are not inclined to think can be built entirely on the authority of new technologies! Or perhaps the "discovery" is not hidden forever? Next year, parliamentary elections are scheduled in Ukraine...

D. Shabanov. A New Monkey Process // KompyuTerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 21 (593) D. Shabanov. Clerical Mimicry // KompyuTerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 43 (615) D. Shabanov. Overcoming the Energy Crisis: Another Failure! // KompyuTerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 1–2 (573–574). – P. 15