Over at The New Republic, Ben Adler has an...interesting little piece up (we read it on Digby's blog, following a link from Majikthise). Adler asks of various prominent folks a few simple questions regarding the validity of evolutionary theory, the validity of creati— er, "intelligent design," and whether (and how) "alternative theories" of origins should be taught in school. It's worth a read, if you're wondering who has a brain, and whose skull is simply filled with lime Jell-O Jigglers. (We won't spoil it for you, but here's a hint: anyone who refers to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism" would make a great dessert.)

The various bloggers who've commented on this piece have their "favorite" respondents — ours would be Pat Buchanan.

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Do I believe in absolute evolution? No. I don't believe that evolution can explain the creation of matter.

Well, gee, Pat — since evolutionary theory doesn't even attempt to explain the creation of matter, we'll agree with you there. Perhaps you should learn what evolutionary theory actually does explain, and get back to us when you grow a brain.

"... Do I believe in Darwinian evolution? The answer is no."

Mmmm. Lime.

What he thinks of intelligent design: "Do I believe in a Darwinian evolutionary process which can be inspired by a creator? Yeah, that's a real possibility. I don't believe evolution can explain the creation of matter.

Wow, he's dense. Not that it surprises us — we've seen him on television, and his head does a great impression of a singularity.

"I don't believe it can explain the intelligent design in the universe.

See, Pat, the point is that under evolutionary theory (and commonly accepted cosmology), there is no intelligent design in the universe. So it's not really up to proponents of evolutionary theory to explain it, since we don't think it exists.

"I just don't believe it can explain the tremendous complexity of the human being when you get down to DNA and you get down to atomic particles, and molecules, atomic particles, subatomic particles, which we're only beginning to understand right now.

And again, Pat, try to comprehend that evolutionary theory doesn't address atomic and subatomic particles. It's about much bigger game. (No, not tigers...well, yes, tigers, and all other organisms.)

"I think to say it all happened by accident or by chance or simply evolved, I just don't believe it."

No matter how many times natural selection is explained to these IDiots, they still can't grasp that it's not about chance.

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "Evolution [has] been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force--it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify polices [sic] which have been horrendous.

Ah, the old Social Darwinism = evolutionary theory argument. Truly, Pat, you possess a staggering grasp of science and history.

"I do believe that every American student should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don't think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. ... How do you answer a kid who says, 'Where did we all come from?' Do you say, 'We all evolved'? I think that's a theory.

Wait...a religioso who doesn't understand what the scientific definition of a "theory" is? Stop the presses and call the mayor, we've got a major newsbreak here.

"... Now the biblical story of creation should be taught to children, not as dogma but every child should know first of all the famous biblical stories because they have had a tremendous influence as well. ... I don't think it should be taught as religion to kids who don't wanna learn it.

That's magnanimous of you, Pat. Of course, it's kind of hard in our society to avoid learning bible stories — one of us went to a private secular high school where the bible was taught as what it is: literature. No big deal. But we know you don't really want it taught that way, Pat.

"... I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say, 'Look the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.'

But...it doesn't. Any "evidence" of intelligent design lies in the perceptions of its proponents.

"... You should leave the teaching of religion to a voluntary classes in my judgment and only those who wish to attend."

Hey, we actually agree on something with Pat Buchanan! Simply amazing. But not as amazing as the little dance the religiosos have learned to do to make it seem like they're not interested in establishing a Christian Theocracy.

Check out what some of Adler's other respondents had to say; some interesting opinions there. And we surely need to make special mention of that amazing talking penis, Tucker Carlson:

"What bothers me is the suggestion that we know things we don't know. That's just another form of religion it seems to me."

Tucker, old chap — a more apt definition of religion was never uttered.

The great divide between scientific vs. religious thinking is that the science side of the discussion can offer only logically and reasonably derived conclusions based on evidence. Since no traditional religous is based on logic or reason, its believers will not respond to logic or reason.

The bottom line is that the religionists don't like the way the implications of evolution make them *feel*. It makes them doubt the very core of their consoling beliefs.

When you make a believer of any kind doubt his beliefs he will hate you for it.

Hey, if they teach the bibilical story of creation, they they should give equal weight to all the stories of creation, right?

Oh, wait they did that, just not in a biology class...

Actually, that argument helped defeat a creationist insistence that Christian creationism be presented at a public zoo, in Tucson AZ, I believe.

His head *Snort*

does a great *snort*

a great impression *snort wheeze*

of a singularity.

BWAA HA HA HA HA HA... *wheeze wheeze*
I can't breath.

Damn HTML... last post left out all my snorting and wheezing cause I forgot that arrows denote HTML. Crud. Oh well.

I can breath now. Pat Robertson's comments on matter and particles have as much to do with evolution as an Oil Refinery does with baking a cake.

I love a near perfect analogy.

We got your back, Shawn — the snorting and wheezing is covered!