aaaaaargh. this should not be difficult
Jul. 5th, 2005 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anthonybaxterthe SMH's Web Diary recently hosted a "debate" on evolution vs Creationism. It was the usual festival of creationist quote-mining, deliberate misrepresentations and outright crackpottery. And then the host decided to sum up the debate. It's a classic of the "no no, everyone's beliefs are equally valid and people should be nice to each other" bullshit that so-called fair-minded individuals reach for in this sort of situation.
It's also crap.
This is not a matter of abstract philosophy, this is science. In science, we have theories, and we have evidence. On the basis of this evidence, we can then determine whether a theory still holds - if not, it is discarded or modified. If the evidence fits, then the theory remains accepted. This could also be called a "wrong answer" and a "right answer", respectively. This is the case here - the creationist theories (such as they are) are either crap or so abstract that you can draw no useful conclusions from them. In this particular debate, it was more of the former than the latter. This was largely because the creationist side wasn't just the (vaguely subtle) Intelligent Design crackpots, but fully-fledged Young Earth Creationist, Every-word-in-the-bible-is-true whackjobs.
Now, if these sad, ignorant dropkicks were happy to just sit in the corner drawing pictures of their favourite bible moments in crayon, I wouldn't care. But they don't - they instead are out there polluting our public discourse with their utter shite. And it does no-one any favours to coddle them.
[update I waded into the discussion thread on this piece, and found that the "moderator" (who posted the above summing-up) believes that "neither creation or evolution should be taught as science." For fuck's sake, what a complete tool.]
It's also crap.
This is not a matter of abstract philosophy, this is science. In science, we have theories, and we have evidence. On the basis of this evidence, we can then determine whether a theory still holds - if not, it is discarded or modified. If the evidence fits, then the theory remains accepted. This could also be called a "wrong answer" and a "right answer", respectively. This is the case here - the creationist theories (such as they are) are either crap or so abstract that you can draw no useful conclusions from them. In this particular debate, it was more of the former than the latter. This was largely because the creationist side wasn't just the (vaguely subtle) Intelligent Design crackpots, but fully-fledged Young Earth Creationist, Every-word-in-the-bible-is-true whackjobs.
Now, if these sad, ignorant dropkicks were happy to just sit in the corner drawing pictures of their favourite bible moments in crayon, I wouldn't care. But they don't - they instead are out there polluting our public discourse with their utter shite. And it does no-one any favours to coddle them.
[update I waded into the discussion thread on this piece, and found that the "moderator" (who posted the above summing-up) believes that "neither creation or evolution should be taught as science." For fuck's sake, what a complete tool.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-05 11:12 pm (UTC)Don't cross the streams.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-05 11:54 pm (UTC)I suspect there's no way that we can change the views of creationists and IDers, and it's going to get worse as the nutcases gain more poolitical power here. It's not obvious what can be done, but at the least I'm going to make sure that my kids don't attend a class that teaches any form of creationism. Maybe the opportunity/need to do more more will exist, but I'm committing to this at a minimum.
The biggest irony on the planet is the fact that the brain structures that lead to religion, and thence to creationism, are a product of the very process of evolution which they deny.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-06 12:57 am (UTC)Self correcting problem.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-06 01:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-06 10:37 am (UTC)And even that is a stretch.