Cretinism. Creationism.

There are many reasons to dislike Sarah Palin but, for me, one in particular stands out. She is a creationist, which makes her thicker than the primordial soup from which all life developed and, therefore, about as suitable a candidate for the office of Vice President as, say, Harpo Marx. Harpo, of course, never spoke and only communicated through whistling or blowing a horn, so that’s a pretty good analogy for a candidate who has not actually been allowed to speak directly with the press about any matters of import. Not until she’s learnt her script, anyway. A month and still no press conference? What are they afraid of?

Anyway… Depressingly, creationism has been something of a hot topic here in the UK of late too, with debate about its suitability for inclusion in science classes. This is an open and shut case, of course. Nothing that lacks any basis in scientific fact and demonstrates none of the discipline of rigorous scientific enquiry should be allowed anywhere near the subject. It is as preposterous as teaching Klingon alongside real languages or flat earth theory in a geography class. Creationist theory already has its correct place on the UK syllabus – in the Religious Education classes. And there it will – and must – stay. To even entertain the notion of it being taught as science alongside evolution is an insult to academia.

I’ve written about this subject several times before and at greater length than here but the argument has to be maintained every time this silly proposition rears its ugly head. The universe in which we live is a remarkable and fascinating place and we should teach our children what we know about it, not fill their heads will infantile explanations about an ethereal being creating it in six days. Nor should we fall for creationism’s more sophisticated relative “intelligent design”.

Deranged old man hears ‘voice of God’

The Realist beat me to this story already, but it’s the sort of thing that I’m compelled to comment on, whether I like it or not. Like The Blues Brothers, I’m on a mission. But not from God.

The whole “intelligent design” argument irritates me enormously. It isn’t intelligent, it’s just a lazy way of making creationism more credible (or should I say less incredible) by tacking on many years of empirically observed evolutionary theory, then passing it off as the work of a supernatural entity. This is vital for creationists because, now that the official line of even the Catholic Church holds that the Bible should not be taken literally, anyone still arguing that the earth was actually made on a Tuesday afternoon about 6,000 years ago would be pointed at and deafened by hoots of derision from anyone with an IQ above, say, 37. (Although, depressingly and predictably, such people do exist: check out Answers In Genesis: “Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse”. They’ve even got their own little creationist museum, depicting images of humans co-existing with dinosaurs. Yes, really. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry *.)

So advocates of “intelligent design” (from now on I’ll just refer to it as “design theory”, the “intelligent” prefix really sticks in my throat), feeling smug with their shiny new idea now that it’s been legitimised by a veneer of scientific theory, want it taught in schools. Which would be fair enough, I suppose, if we were talking about religious education – after all, science has no concrete answers about the origin of existence, so if you want a metaphysical argument, by all means talk about it in your RE classes. Even your philosophy classes if you must. But no, they want it taught on the science syllabus, as if the Enlightenment never happened. Meanwhile, George Bush endorses the teaching of design theory because “part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought”. Great. In that case, perhaps we should teach our kids that 7+7=139, in order to expose them to “different theories” of mathematics? Physics is presumably a point of conjecture now too, so I’d like to see more people making the case for the lesser known theory E=mc³. Why should we only learn about Einstein’s “opinion”?

The assault on reason gathers pace.

So well done to the residents of Dover, Pennsylvania, for ousting the local school board trying to stick design theory into their curriculum. In these depressing times, it’s encouraging to see supporters of rational thought stake a hard won victory against the forces of sheer ignorance and cretinism.

But watch out, Dover, because deranged Christian fantasist Pat Robertson has a dire warning for you all: “If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city”. Yikes! But wait, it gets worse. “God is tolerant and loving, but we can’t keep sticking our finger in His eye forever. . . . If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them.” Sorry, you lost me there. God is tolerant and loving. . . but?? I thought God’s love was unconditional? Where has this “but” come from all of a sudden? So you’re telling us that if, say, Dover was devastated by an earthquake (a God-created earthquake, of course: presumably tectonic plate movement is just a “theory”?), God would look the other way?

Actually, I’ve got to confess: I don’t rate God’s skills of disaster relief very highly. Not much evidence of them being deployed in New Orleans was there? Nor Pakistan. Nowhere to be seen after the tsunami either. So if we’re grading God in this area, He gets a D-.

Although how Pat knows any of this is something of a mystery, too. Presumably God is “speaking” to him directly. Shouldn’t Pat be put in a home for the ‘emotionally interesting’? This is what we usually do with people who claim to hear the voice of God in their head isn’t it?

Scary fact of the day: Karl Rove consulted this doddering fuckwit about Supreme Court nominations.

Anyway, I’m going to go and have a lie down. Maybe read a good book. Not the Bible though.

* Decision made. I’ll cry.

Oh Tonto, we’re not in Kansas now

In case you’re not aware, intellectually stunted slackjaws in Kansas are in the process of deciding whether or not to teach a form of creationism in their state schools. Yes, really. In this day and age. And not just in religious classes either (which would be fair enough, I suppose) – they’re planning to teach it on the science syllabus. They don’t call it creationism, of course, because people would just laugh. Instead, they prefer the slightly more credible-sounding “intelligent design” which posits that, while certain evolutionary characteristics might be discernible in the world, they are all the handiwork of a supreme being. In other words, creationism through the back door. Creationism sent to college.

I’m not going to go into the “merits” or otherwise of this particular strand of thought (truly, life is too short) but I am going to point you in the direction of this work of satirical genius: an open letter to the Kansas School Board. In short, it demands that an alternative theory of intelligent design be added to the school curriculum. Namely, that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that when teaching this subject, tutors must be dressed in full pirate regalia lest they incur the wrath of the pasta-based deity. In addition, it points out that “global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s”. All backed up with statistics, of course, to give it a “scientific” basis, just like the advocates of intelligent design.

Funniest thing I’ve read in ages.