Science Can't Dance
Science Can’t Dance
Sometimes it’s hard not to hate your own species. I say this as someone who’s used his own many foibles as a reference point. Just lurk around the streets a bit. Listen intently to what people say. Watch the news. Read a paper. If humans aren’t a bunch of crazy sum-bitches, I don’t know what would qualify as crazy.
But, if humans are animals—similar to—but different from, the many other animals, and, in pronounced ways, with bigger brains and a cunning that any jackal would have to admire—that just might explain a lot. (I have to admit, I have a thing for long, convoluted sentences. But they have to groove.)
Anyway. If we just lowered our standards, it would be easier to look in the mirror. Either that, or we’d all be a Democrats.
The bible, on the other hand, offers a profound kind of poetry, which speaks to something much deeper and more holistic than science, with it’s severe lack of poetry. Science is all about the top layer, then another, and another. Maybe then, you get to some muscle. But, not until. Science doesn’t see color, except as a part of the light spectrum. Science can’t groove like James Brown. It wishes it could. But it can’t. Science can’t have sex. No love stories for science.
Science left to itself, becomes zombie-like. Hitler dug zombies. Hitler was all about the science of eugenics, which came to us by way of Darwin’s cold blooded racism. Everyone else had racism, too. Probably a lot worse than Darwin and science. But science, unlike religion, could invent new weapons and methods of killing our enemies, including new “Scientific” theories about why they should be killed. Science is efficient. After it’s figured things out. Not before, though.
None of this applies to actual scientists. There is a difference between a method—which is what science is, and a hu-man—who happens to be a scientist. A scientist can groove, although, probably, in a white-boy kinda way. But science cannot, even under the best of circumstances.
So remember, science isn’t true. It can be correct, but not true. Religion can be factually wrong, but profoundly true, on a much deeper, human level. Don’t confuse these distinctions. Or, the whole lot of us will be in serious trouble.
Having said that, never, ever, elect a poet to high office. Not unless he or she has a degree in science—and I don’t mean the social sciences, either!
Sincerely, Chester Burnett
Sometimes it’s hard not to hate your own species. I say this as someone who’s used his own many foibles as a reference point. Just lurk around the streets a bit. Listen intently to what people say. Watch the news. Read a paper. If humans aren’t a bunch of crazy sum-bitches, I don’t know what would qualify as crazy.
But, if humans are animals—similar to—but different from, the many other animals, and, in pronounced ways, with bigger brains and a cunning that any jackal would have to admire—that just might explain a lot. (I have to admit, I have a thing for long, convoluted sentences. But they have to groove.)
Anyway. If we just lowered our standards, it would be easier to look in the mirror. Either that, or we’d all be a Democrats.
The bible, on the other hand, offers a profound kind of poetry, which speaks to something much deeper and more holistic than science, with it’s severe lack of poetry. Science is all about the top layer, then another, and another. Maybe then, you get to some muscle. But, not until. Science doesn’t see color, except as a part of the light spectrum. Science can’t groove like James Brown. It wishes it could. But it can’t. Science can’t have sex. No love stories for science.
Science left to itself, becomes zombie-like. Hitler dug zombies. Hitler was all about the science of eugenics, which came to us by way of Darwin’s cold blooded racism. Everyone else had racism, too. Probably a lot worse than Darwin and science. But science, unlike religion, could invent new weapons and methods of killing our enemies, including new “Scientific” theories about why they should be killed. Science is efficient. After it’s figured things out. Not before, though.
None of this applies to actual scientists. There is a difference between a method—which is what science is, and a hu-man—who happens to be a scientist. A scientist can groove, although, probably, in a white-boy kinda way. But science cannot, even under the best of circumstances.
So remember, science isn’t true. It can be correct, but not true. Religion can be factually wrong, but profoundly true, on a much deeper, human level. Don’t confuse these distinctions. Or, the whole lot of us will be in serious trouble.
Having said that, never, ever, elect a poet to high office. Not unless he or she has a degree in science—and I don’t mean the social sciences, either!
Sincerely, Chester Burnett