It's sad that on this one issue, a subset of conservatives engage in exactly the behavior for which those same conservatives would (justifiably) excoriate liberals: If someone disagrees with you/them, you paint them with perjoratives, scoff at them, snort in your self-declared wisdom and indignation. It's how liberals behave on any issue that can't bear the light of debate; the very notion of debate is ridiculed and declared unworthy, and it's how this little subset of conservatives behaves regarding any challenge to dogmatic belief in evolution.
There’s blame enough to go around; the behavior of the evos tends to track the behavior of the creos. I suppose I could try and research the number of flames directed at Alamo-Girl, but I suspect I wouldn’t find much, except a few from Gore3000 just before he was banished for accusing FR itself to be part of The Great Evolution Conspiracy. It’s true that few of the evos have time anymore for unqualified declarations that “There is no evidence for evolution,” “ID is science,” or assertions that amount to “Arguing with me is an attack on God.” The first of these is ridiculous on its face, and the second and third have yet to be demonstrated. As soon as someone comes up with a way to falsify ID, the objections to number two will go away. The debate on number three is likely to continue.
When such a furor is raised over nothing more than these incredibly benign disclaimers pointing out that there are gaps in the evidence of evolution, the dogmatic nature of its disciples is proven beyond any doubt. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to intellectually demonstrate the strength of your position vs. other possibilities, you stomp around and snort and whine and assure the world that nobody worth listening to could possibly disagree with your dogma. Instead of stepping up to the challenge and taking on another viewpoint with a reasoned debate, you deride and chortle.
Why have disclaimers about the theory of evolution and only that theory? Just this morning, I read a book review in the Wall Street Journal, about a book titled “Stealing God’s Thunder.” The review points out that Franklin’s famous kite experiments led to his invention of the lightning rod. This invention, interestingly enough, led to denunciations from religious quarters that Franklin was interfering with the will of God! Lightning was one of God’s methods for keeping humanity in line, you see. That’s how the arugments for ID look like to many of us. (Note to those who insist ID has nothing to do with God: I’m responding to a post that started with eight citations from the Bible).
The stomping and snorting by the evos arise from ID’s (thus far), failure to meet the requirements of an actual scientific theory. Its main failing is that no test for falsification has been proposed. Another problem is that it doesn’t appear to be fruitful in any way. Suppose ID is true. What new lines of inquiry does it open up? Where does it lead, scientifically speaking? A theory that doesn’t lead to new knowledge isn’t of much use.
At this point the debate is, “Is ID science?” and not, “Which theory is better?” There is no other scientific theory regarding evolution (or the lack thereof). Until that first question is answered – scientifically, not politically – the derision is going to continue because ID wants to call itself science without actually being science.
Here's reality: That behavior, that manic resistance to the very idea of simple discussion, is so transparent that a child can see right through to the core of what it's really all about, which is the fact that evolution as currently taught cannot remotely begin to stand up under real scrutiny. Thus your frenzied efforts to see that it never receives real scrutiny in the public eye. You instead march in lockstep with an enormous belief system that has been handed over to you, and refuse to see anything else or hear anything else. It's pretty clear who's "willfully blind" on this issue, and it ain't us.
Speaking of children ...
Dad: Who broke the cookie jar?
Son: Elves.
Dad: Don’t be silly! Who broke the cookie jar?
Son: ‘Smatter, Dad? Don’t you even want to debate the theory?
“Evolution as currently taught cannot remotely begin to stand up under real scrutiny” is half a point: most science as currently taught at the levels controlled by state or local school boards (and that’s what we’re debating here), cannot remotely begin to stand up under real scrutiny. At the middle-school level, they’re teaching atomic theory that’s known to be hopelessly outdated. Why? It’s easy for the kids to grasp, that’s why. The ones who need to know the state of atomic theory, will get it later.
The comment about “frenzied efforts to see that it never receives real scrutiny in the public eye,” is also misleading. Scientific theories are not debated by the public or in the public eye. Further, the media are notoriously unreliable when it comes to science reporting. Any time the media presents to “the public eye” the latest perpetual motion machine, the scientific community invariably answers with hoots of derision. Why? Does science have some vested interest in keeping the public from the benefits of perpetual motion? Have they studied this particular machine? No and no. It’s because a working perpetual motion machine would require revising every known law of physics.
Your claim that conservatives are scientifically ignorant and willfully blind is the height of ironic hypocrisy. Virtually every science textbook in the country adheres 100% to what you want, yet you would oppose a sticker with a few sentences being slapped in the front of the book, or a thirty-second statement being read, both of which essentially say "there are people who don't believe evolution as taught." A proponent of a scientifically strong theory would eagerly accept not only such statements, but a full-fledged public debate so you could show your "enemies" as the wanton fools you claim them to be. You would lick your chops in anticipation of your inevitable and decisive victory. Instead, you sit back and play the role of heckler. Most curious.
Do you want a sticker on English grammar books advising students, “Some people believe a preposition is acceptable to end a sentence with,” or “Some people don’t use English”? Sticker or statement, the issue is the same. Scientific theory (strong or otherwise), should be taught in science class, but only scientific theory. ID hasn’t made it yet, so it doesn’t belong in science class, no matter how little time is devoted to it.
Understand this: Conservatism doesn't need you to save and protect it from those you consider to be so ignorant and blind. I'm neither ignorant nor blind. I'm paying close attention with eyes wide open.
You've staked your entire position regarding this issue on a house of cards built by a man who let his imagination get carried away as he engaged in birdwatching, a house of cards that has been endlessly and frantically propped up for a hundred-fifty years. If Darwin were alive, he would almost certainly reject his own theory. The lack of transitional fossils was a glaring weakness, one that was sure to be eliminated as technology advanced and uncovered a staggering wealth of transitional fossils that left no doubt. A century and a half later, the technology has certainly improved but those darned pesky transitionals are still missing. That weakness still exists and has moved beyond glaring; it now shines with the blinding fervor of the sun.
Nice ad hom regarding Darwin. It appears again necessary to point out that scientific careers and reputations are most spectacularly made by overturning previously accepted theories.
Your statement regarding a modern lack of transitionals (at least compared to Darwin’s time), is demonstrably false. Have you really studied the matter? In addition, any unrelated fields now supply evidence that supports evolution. Even Pope John Paul II accepted that. No counter evidence has turned up, either. (Note to the bloody minded: I do not imply that MississippiMan, I, or others do or should follow the Pope. I point out JPII's position as evidence that a thoughtful and unquestionably religious person need not reject evolution).
Finally, so there's no mistake as to where I'm coming from: I believe in God the Creator and His Son Jesus Christ. It's wonderful to me that there is no contradiction between His Word and real science, but even if there were, I'd take what God says over what any conglomeration of men had to say. The very thought that a century and a half of man-created wisdom is even in the same realm as the knowledge handed down from Almighty God is farcicality on parade.
But you post to the internet! That requires the use of electricity in a fashion that’s been known since the middle of the 18th century to lead men away from God!
Well done! Very fair, articulate, and well reasoned.