Chicken of Turkey

A brief note on a telling dichotomy:

When the left describes something they don’t like about Christianity or Judaism, they are not shy about it.  They’ll even pin bombings or shootings on “Christian terrorists” or “Tea party” people ( which to many on the left seems synonymous), before any evidence is in hand at all. But they are often strangely gently and circumspect when it comes to handling Islam:

Consider this scientific brief on the teaching of creationism in Turkey.  You can get through the entire document without realizing what religion they’re talking about. By saying “creationism,” they are naturally hoping the reader will think “Christian,” though in Europe especially there are large numbers of Muslim schools teaching a very strict and odd form of creationism.

Fair game

So how do they describe these creationist teachers in Turkey?  They are “religious,” “religious conservatives,” and so on.  Nowhere in the document is “Muslim” or “Islam” or the Qur’an (any spelling) mentioned.  Shariah law is not mentioned directly, only obliquely referred to as “populist religious rhetoric in the political scene.”

Why not? Perhaps because Christians and Jews won’t slit your throat for offending them, as a general thing, and the Left knows this. Conversely, Christians in Turkey are tortured to death or killed outright on a regular basis. This is true in jihadist regimes in general, sadly.

And it is unfortunate. Until that religion grows up into the modern age, it will be a constant source of conflict in the world.  In the minds of millions, or tens of millions, it is an appropriate death sentence to offend Allah, and too many of them are happy to carry out such a sentence personally.

Theory and practice

As an aside, it is disappointing that the American Physical Society has such a wrong notion of what a scientific theory is:

Another interesting difference between the two books relates to the meaning of “scientific theory”; the recent version treats the concept as an open-ended, indefinite opinion rather than a fact, reducing it to an unclear hypothesis.

It is neither “a fact” nor “an unclear hypothesis.” There are many ways to phrase it, but the general notion is that a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been well-demonstrated by observation and testing, and that represents the best working hypothesis to explain a particular way in which the world works.

In some cases (such as the Theory of Evolution), it is very abundantly supported. In others, such as “string theory” where the term “hypothesis” should be employed instead, testing and observation are so far very difficult.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle