Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

"Creationism In A Lab Coat"
The primitive people are out in force in Ohio:

...140 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, 75 years after John Scopes taught natural selection to a biology class in Tennessee, and 15 years after the US Supreme Court ruled against a Louisiana law mandating equal time for creationism, the question of how to teach the theory of evolution was being reopened here in Ohio.

Big surprise, the "Intelligent Design" wingnuts say that biological life is so complex, there must be a god. Duh...because something is inexplicable to you doesn't mean you can drop god in as the explanation, totally without proof. I mean, why not Julie Andrews, Charlton Heston, Courtney Love, or Barney? And, guess what:

...Darwin's theories can account for complexity ... ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and ... it proposes no testable explanations.

As the Ohio debate revealed, however, the Discovery Institute doesn't need the favor of the scientific establishment to prevail in the public arena. Over the past decade, Discovery has gained ground in schools, op-ed pages, talk radio, and congressional resolutions as a "legitimate" alternative to evolution. ID is playing a central role in biology curricula and textbook controversies around the country. The institute and its supporters have taken the "teach the controversy" message to Alabama, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and Texas.

The ID movement's rhetorical strategy - better to appear scientific than holy - has turned the evolution debate upside down. ID proponents quote Darwin, cite the Scopes monkey trial, talk of "scientific objectivity," then in the same breath declare that extraterrestrials might have designed life on Earth. It may seem counterintuitive, but the strategy is meticulously premeditated, and it's working as planned. The debate over Darwin is back, and coming to a 10th-grade biology class near you.

One more reason to avoid voting for George Bush or anybody who parrots the fundamentalist party line. I say this as somebody who finds John Kerry, at best, an unfortunate choice for president, but finds George Bush an extremely terrifying one.

Posted by aalkon at October 24, 2004 8:22 AM


I've always wondered how exactly one "teaches" creationism.

"Okay, kids, lesson one: God created everything. Now sit down and shut up till the bell rings."

Posted by: LYT at October 24, 2004 1:07 PM

It's too bad that ID is often times nothing more really than a euphemism for a supernatural god. Even worse is taking it to the next step and insisting on various oaths of fealty to our "designer." I agree, you can't "plop" god down sans evidence (doesn't have to be rigorous proof).

On the other hand, I think there are defensible reasons to be skeptical that life arose spontaneously from a hostile chemical soup of non-life. That's not a criticism of the theory of evolution per se, but a question that no present theory of abiogenesis ( has yet to satisfactorily answer -- not by a long shot. And you have to have life before natural selection can operate on it.

For now, instead of ID I propose ES -- Enlightened Skepticism.

Posted by: RKN at October 24, 2004 1:42 PM

ID for Ingenuous Dystrophy.
Teach children how to ease their brains' stress and take supernatural for granted, sure that's the evolutionary design from man to ape (read Pierre Boulle's Planet of the Apes).
Outsourced intelligence is the bliss of developed countries.

Posted by: viktor at October 24, 2004 4:06 PM

Bush is rushing America back to the 19th century.

His recent babble about Dred Scott at the debates was really a coded promise to overturn Roe v. Wade:

Posted by: Bush Is a Failure at October 24, 2004 4:35 PM


It's refreshing to find that there is at least one other person on the planet that thinks BOTH creationism and evolutionary theory don't pass muster.

It has become so much of a tug-o-war between the two concepts (really, between religion and atheism), that no one seems to want to discuss the fact that the science is sorely lacking in both camps.

For those looking for a more technical explaination of why both theories are lame, I refer you to an interesting book called "Darwin's Black Box". From a deductive reasoning standpoint, I don't think there's a plausible theory on the table concerning the origins of life right now. (Ignoring for the moment the larger pesky unanswered question about where all the tangible shit in the universe came from in the first place)

I'm guess I'm not sure why it's so damn hard for we humans to say we just don't f**king know. After all, we have infinity staring us in the face every day.

Posted by: Jeff R at October 24, 2004 10:29 PM

No wonder there is pandemonium in the classroom! First we've got Darwin dangling on his branch who tells us we are related to monkeys, then shuttles in from his expanding Universe extraterrestrial Einstein who does not tell us who pushed the button that released the Big Bang! Had these two geniuses lived at the same time, they could have straightened out the damned controversy of the theory of evolution versus creationism, and given us the answer to which came first, the chicken or the egg. What the world needs is a spontaneous generation of geniuses, such as "Darstein" and "Einwin", to rescue us from the bigoted monkeys & parrots who want to put the chicken back in the egg

Frania W.

... or the egg back in the chicken.

Posted by: Frania W. at October 25, 2004 11:05 PM