Friday, May 02, 2008

Take THAT, Ben Stein!

Via Science Fiction Brewed Fresh Daily comes this bit of joy from Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

Now, if we could just get every gullible schmuck that sees Ben Stein's disingenuous "Expelled" movie to read the whole Scientific American article, maybe we could undo some of the damage being inflicted on American's understanding of science.

Now Playing: Billy Joel The Nylon Curtain


  1. I haven't yet read the SCI AM article, but the basic problem is that Creation Science isn't science as we understand it because its model Can't Be Wrong...when or if it doesn't predict or explain the observed facts best, it can't, from its proponents' dogma, be rejected. As with real science.

    Real science can't ever be Not Possibly Wrong. Which, of course, just makes it scarier. ***Must cleave to Eternal Verities!!!***

  2. The problem with Creationism, or "Intelligent Design" as it now likes to masquerade under, is that it reduces religion to "the God of the gaps." If there's something science (or people in general, for that matter) doesn't understand, then ID throws up its collective hands and says "God did it! It's a miracle! No need for further study!" By definition, every time a new discovery is made, or additional insight is made, God is reduced. For them, God only exists in what we don't know. To me, that's a small, timid god, to be so fearful and diminished by truth and reality. Of course, any deity that'd plant 65-million-year-old dinosaur bones in a world only 6,000 years old as a test of faith is pretty much a petty dick to begin with. I much prefer a Creator who isn't afraid of quantum mechanics, multi-dimensional space-time and string theory (not to mention evolution). Not only does that show imagination, but it also shows a great deal of foresight, management skills and attention to detail!