Dammit, PZ! I Was Gonna Mock That Wingnuttery!
True story. I was laying in bed last night reading the Boston Sunday Globe when I came across an editorial on Intelligent Design written by the Globe’s token conservative columnist, Jeff Jacoby. By the end of it, I was so enraged by its complete and utter stupidity that I woke up my roommate, dragged him out of bed, and demanded he read it. Particularly, I wanted him to recite the last paragraph aloud, just to make sure that it wasn’t some figment of a Steel Reserve-induced hallucination (emphasis mine):
In truth, intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence — God, most people would say — responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn’t argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn’t make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn’t primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It’s science.
In other words, intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory, but it should still be taught in science classrooms because it’s science. I honestly think the liberal editors of the Globe hired Jacoby just to make other conservatives look bad. I really do.
Anyway, I was going to do a more thorough debunking, but PZ Myers has already done a far better job. Go check it out.
Man, I’m sorry. I thought everyone knew I had first dibs on wingnut anti-evolutionism.
Hey, first time I clickied the page was all screwed up and now it’s like totally different. Did you guys get a maid????
Falsification is no good, as he would realise if he had considered the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis, which can’t be disproved either. They now have a video game
Sadly, my display has gone a pissy two tone blue. Where is the light on dark action?
Also, creepily, there’s no notation as to which of you boys wrote this, so I don’t actually know who to mock here. So, if it wasn’t actually as I suspect Brad, I’ll have to apologize to him for the following:
Duh. Dr Myers *always* gets to mock the anti-evolution wingnuts. Also, he gets first dibs on squid-oriented oddness, and anything involving invertebrate sex.
Honestly, Brad. Thou Shalt Not Poach Thy Non-Chordate Ancestors. (Though steaming is probably okay.)
I am more disturbed and annoyed by the pieces of Cathy Young than Jacoby. Jacoby is a conservative who doesn’t pretend otherwise. Most of Young’s articles on the Globe are collections of Gotcha points from far-rightwing blogs. They are intellectually dishonest and extremely biased, yet she masquerades as a moderate.
I dont understand why repuggies are pushing the monkey-human theory out of the window. There MUST be some truth to it.
I mean, can anyone here seriously look at George Bush and say with all certainty that he did not evolve from a chimpanzee?
Come on!
I think we’re missing some of the finer points of conservative philosophy here. Maybe it’s because we’re just not as high-falootin’ as they are, but this almost appears Hegelian. The synthesis of it not being a scientific theory juxtaposed to the antithesis which is science is not to be discounted. Maybe Jacoby also meant it in a Schopenhauerian phenomenon-noumenon conflict. Either way, this must be some very deep thinking on their part, much too deep for us Bush-haters to understand.
Sorry for being OT, but what the heck is going on around here? Sadly, No is all white and blue and weird looking. Did you guys do that on purpose or should I be calling a guy?
I’ve seen double-think before, but hell, same paragraph? That’s goddam impressive that’s what that is.
Most nutters start with a flawed premise and don’t totally contradict it until near the end. This man may be the most efficient right wing columnist ever.
I’m surprised that nobody ever picked up on my nickname for Jeff Jacoby (everybody seemed to love “Doughy Pantload” for Goldberg), especially since it fits in great with the subject matter of his asinine column… Ladies and gentleman, I give you:
Unfrozen Caveman Columnist
Man, I’m sorry. I thought everyone knew I had first dibs on wingnut anti-evolutionism.
You do. It just means I’m gonna have to get up extra early next time… 🙂
Sorry for being OT, but what the heck is going on around here? Sadly, No is all white and blue and weird looking. Did you guys do that on purpose or should I be calling a guy?
you’ve got white and blue? I’m looking at black words on a dark grey background.
“Unfrozen Caveman Columnist” is teh funny. It’s just a little too long for common use. Sorry, dude.
Now, personally, I’d go with devolved.