Attacks on evolution officially go over the edge

December 15, 2005

I’ve followed the creationist movement for years, and I thought I’d seen just about every attack on modern biology imaginable. Alas, I was wrong. As one very astute reader brought to my attention, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum published its latest attack on evolution this week with one argument that left me shaking my head — and reaching for the Tylenol.

Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a “scientific” issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled.

They don’t appear to be kidding. As far as the Eagle Forum is concerned, this is a legitimate and reasoned argument against modern science. Wow.

On a related note, a month after Kansas undercut its biology standards and redefined the meaning of “science,” South Carolina is poised to follow in Kansas’ footsteps.

A proponent of teaching various theories of human origin, which include creationism, gained support Monday from the state’s public school reform oversight panel.

At the urging of Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, the Education Oversight Committee voted 8-7 to strike from high school biology standards wording that tied schools to teaching only evolution.

The mind reels.

As was said about Schlafly’s first book, published during the Goldwater campaign:

“None Dare Call It Reason.”

Schlafly is Proof Number One that not all hairless bipeds are “homo sapiens.” Followed by the rest of the Republican Party.

  • But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons.

    which is EXACTLY why fetuses and “unborn children” have no legal or Constitutional rights.

  • Ok, let’s recall a few things:

    *A few years ago Ohio did, over the protests of some of its leading scientists, include some ID claptrap in the curriculum.
    *Ohio is on the verge of theocracy as Chris Hedges has been noting (check out the Citizens of Character initiative on the web site of gubernatorial candidate, electoral thief, and OH secretary of state J. Kenneth Blackwell)
    *Ohio has had suspicious reversals of three ballot referenda that were doing well in the polls but would have stripped Blackwell and the repubs of power to a large degree.
    *Ohio just passed or is on the verge of passing a law that would inhibit the ability of the populace to do recounts or question voting machine veracity.

    and

    *South Carolina a few weeks back was the announced target of a theocratic takeover.

    People like Dobson and his allies are aiming at a right wing christian theocracy which could be supported by corporations because it is fascist in its core character. Places like Ohio and the Carolinas which are losing jobs out the wazoo with little effort to attract alternative economic visions are, in my view, ripe for the fundamentalist appeal in the same way that young men in the middle east are–without basic hope you can fall back on something which appears to offer you hope.

    I am telling you that I am concerned that this is a race to a takeover and that man of the reality based community who read excellent blogs like this one are too unconcerned or oblivious because there is the attitude of “that won’t happen here”.

    we need to wake up and fight hard.

  • CB, I think the other argument given by the Eagle Forum is just as troubling as the one which you quote.

    Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians — but also evolutionists who label themselves “theistic evolutionists” — argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?(Emphasis in the original.)

    This could be called the maximalist argument against evolution. It rejects the idea that there is any truth in evolution. There is no possibility of reconciling evolution with the existence of God. The logical conclusion is that they don’t want creation taught along side of evolution in school rather they want evolution banished from school. That is frightening.

    By the way, why are these people so concerned by the fact that humans are animals?

    My own position on this is that via mental gymnastics you can reconcile the belief in the existence of god with evolution, but it is like putting a sweater on a dog. It serves an emotional need of the dog owner, but it serves no need for the dog. And the dog and the owner both end up looking silly.

  • Strangely, here in NY I talk about intelligent design in my research methods class. No one even had to force me. Of course, I use it as a tool for showing the students what is science and what isn’t. But then I used my own professional judgment to include it because I saw educational value in doing so, and not because someone ignorant of my discipline (or just plain ignorant) told me to put it in the curriculum.

    Another funny thought…isn’t it strange that Republicans believe in individual freedom/responsibility only when it comes to business and their own politicians, but no one else (e.g., teachers, lawyers, researchers) is to be trusted? This should be all the evidence required to show just where the GOP’s loyalties lie.

  • “Another funny thought…isn’t it strange that Republicans believe in individual freedom/responsibility only when it comes to business and their own politicians, but no one else (e.g., teachers, lawyers, researchers) is to be trusted? This should be all the evidence required to show just where the GOP’s loyalties lie.” — Mr. Flibble

    Do you (teachers, lawyers, scientists) vote for Republicans?

    See, you’re not trustworthy.

  • Is this how it was for ancient Rome? The slow decay from within caused by its own incompetent citizens?

  • Curmudgeon wrote: “Is this how it was for ancient Rome? The slow decay from within caused by its own incompetent citizens?”

    That’s not an easy question to answer, but the Romans overspent during a time when the economy was weak and they were suffering from massive depopulation. Emperors were forced to debase the currency to pay the bills (primarily to support the military), causing massive inflation and that, combined with extortionate taxes and tax-collecting, gave people little incentive to support the government. In fact, many people either fled or put themselves under the protection of local bigshots (a sort of proto-manorial system). Rome was able to survive crushing military defeats earlier because they had superb infrastructure; but the weakening economy and political instability meant that the infrastructure had decayed to the point where Rome could no longer exercise political control over many areas or respond to military crises.

    This is a very crude & oversimplified synopsis, but it was not because the Roman people were incompetent! There are some parallels between the US and Rome, though many obvious differences. The most crucial similarity, in my opinion, is the neglect of the national infrastructure and low national morale.

  • After the Republicans are done governing (hopefully in 2006), there won’t be any Constitution anyway…

  • Why not just amend the Constitution to outlaw
    evolution? Toss it in with flag burning and
    gay marriage. Do ’em altogether. Torture,
    too, since a recent poll showed 61% of
    the Amerian people actually approve of
    it, in certain conditions.

    Hell, something on Christmas could go in
    there, too. Let’s let our imaginations loose,
    guys. You know those stodgy Repubs never
    have any ideas. Let’s dazzle them with ours!

  • I’ve always been struck by one particulary hypocrical aspect of the ID proponents’ arguments for bring ID into the classroom.

    They say “We only want to inform students that there are other viewpoints and alternatives to the theory of evolution. Shouldn’t students be taught to think for themselves and be allowed to draw their own conclusions on intelligent design vs. evolution?”

    On the other hand, many of the ID wingnuts also are dead set against informing students about other viewpoints and alternatives when it comes to sex education, safer sex, condom use, birth control, or gay people. The same folk who want multiple viewpoints taught about ID shriek in horror when it comes to presenting any sexuality information to students other than “monogamy within marriage, chastity otherwise, condoms fail, and homoseckshools are so evil we can’t talk about them.”

    Personally, I think the existence of George W. Bush, Ann Coulter, and people who wear white shoes after labor day are proof enough that intelligent design is a misnomer. No supreme being with an ounce of intelligence and direct control over humankind would have allowed that to happen.

  • “Is this how it was for ancient Rome? The slow decay from within caused by its own incompetent citizens? ”
    Comment by Curmudgeon

    Don’t know about Rome, but it sure is how it is down here in Louisiana.

  • Gosh, I hate to break it to Phyllis and her cohorts, but human beings *are* animals!!! We sure ain’t plants nor are we minerals (although we eat plants and contain minerals).

    Although the expressions “dumb as a rock” and “vegetable for a brain” could apply to many of these morons.

    These people are so *tiresome*.

  • —“No supreme being with an ounce of intelligence and direct control over humankind would have allowed that to happen.”—

    Ahhh, but one with a sense of HUMOR might! We have to have things to laugh at, do we not?

  • why is it that people find themselves so intellegent when you are just believing what you are told? those of you who support evolutionism are doing that by faith just like in a religion christians believe in creationism by faith. and why shouldnt creationists fight back? if evolutionism is so accurate it would not be a theory, and seeing as it is only a theory evolutionism should not be pushed at people anymore than some other method of the begining of the earth. this country is for the freedom of different beliefs but yet evolutionists cannot tolerate a competition of what they believe to be true with any other approach. why dont you check yourself and see what makes you so right? you are for evolutionism because you have your faith set on it and that is the belief you trust, same as creationists have their belief and are fighting for that right.

    • Comments are closed.