Creationists on the offensive

The Washington Post offers a helpful overview of the current battle over teaching evolution. As with the Social Security debate, the Republicans know that this is probably their golden moment, the apogee of their legislative influence, and the inclination is to reach for things that previously would have been deemed a step too far. (It's of course this view that leads to political overreach.)

The politics of this battle aside, the key issue in the debate is the effort on the part of the creationists to claim that there exists a "debate" among "scientists" about the status and legitimacy of evolutionary theory. They claim that all they want is for this debate to be taught.

However, there is no debate. On the one hand, you have scientists, who want to teach evolution and not creationism. On the other hand, you have creationists. And the twain simply never meet in credible discussions. When the creationists hear this argument, they howl about liberal bias, blah blah blah. But the truth is that a creationist can no more be a credible biologist than someone who thinks the earth was first formed in floods 6000 years ago can be a credible geologist. There is no scientific debate, and the only way they can pretend there is one, is to redefine what it means to be a "scientist."

As usual, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) makes the point brilliantly: "'Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy,' Santorum said in an interview. 'My reading of the science is...'"-- WHOA, hold your horses...

Rick, we don't care what "your reading" of the science is.

You don't get to have an opinion.

You're a politician, not a scientist. So whatever follows your statement of "My reading of the science is..." is irrelevant.

The flat-earthers just don't seem to get this point. Science is not a popularity contest. The article quotes one Terry Fox, a Southern Baptist minister who argues that the "debate" about evolution should be taught in schools because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys." Again, I'm sorry, Terry, but what "most people in Kansas" happen to believe is totally irrelevant to whether or not evolutionary theory has scientific legitimacy. (In fact, if "most people in Kansas" believe that evolutionary theory states that "we come from monkeys," then that's exactly they need to be taught evolution!)

The real point about this article, however, is how aggressive our domestic mullahs are getting, and how they are being actively abetted by the Bush regime.