2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Skeptics' Circle #12 The RantsThe ALC: Giving Atheists a Bad Name »

The Truth is Out There...Way, Way Out There
2005.07.09 (Sat) 20:58

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.


— • —
[  Filed under: % Creationism  % Religion  ]

Comments (6)

Grendel, 2005.07.09 (Sat) 23:46 [Link] »

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.



s.t.r., 2005.07.11 (Mon) 14:53 [Link] »

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...



Grendel, 2005.07.11 (Mon) 16:33 [Link] »

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



Shawn McCormick, 2005.07.11 (Mon) 17:41 [Link] »

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.



Shawn McCormick, 2005.07.11 (Mon) 17:48 [Link] »

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.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2005.07.11 (Mon) 18:52 [Link] »

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




— • —

|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]