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”.

Centrist. Atlanticist. Dry liberal. Anti-totalitarian. Post-ideological pragmatist. Child of The Enlightenment. Toucan.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Uncategorized
12 comments on “Cretinism. Creationism.
  1. mAc Chaos says:

    Daily Kos? Andrew Sullivan? Seriously, CS… Seriously. I think I can begin to understand where you get some of your opinions. You might as well be reading al-Guardian, and not for the comedy value. Those sites are only good if you want to plumb the depths of the Left’s sewage. Pretty much every outrageous smear or lie or 9/11 conspiracy theory has originated and been peddled around by those lot. And then there’s Sullivan, always innocently “airing” theories.

  2. Citizen Sane says:

    Mmmm. Aside from picking up this link, I don’t think I’ve ever actually read the Daily Kos before. No plans to either. Ultimately the story they’ve picked up is from the Anchorage Daily News although I freely confess I don’t know if the ADN is part of the massive liberal media conspiracy or not 🙂

    And while The Guardian has its faults it’s not a peddler of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not at all. Regrettably It attracts all manner of cranks and whackjobs on its blogs and they drive me mad, but the paper itself doesn’t hold any such line and – unless you can show me otherwise – has never done so.

    Sullivan is not “the Left”. He’s a fiscal conservative, just not of the Christianist variety (although he is, in fact, a Christian).

  3. mAc Chaos says:

    Well, Sullivan is worse than the Guardian then.

    Sullivan is no conservative. That is a joke. He was at one point. He’s degenerated over the years into an overly emotional leftist shill. I think I can pinpoint the exact date too. He used to be rah-rah Bush, Iraq, until Bush came out against the FMA. Almost overnight he began to find things to nitpick, he endorsed Kerry while still trying to pretend he wasn’t a liberal, and now he’s endorsed Obama. I’m not sure how you go from “fiscal conservative” to endorsing the two socialist members in each race. Come on. It’s a joke. He’s gay first, everything else second.

    Look, I used to like him too, but among actual conservatives he’s become a laughing stock a long time ago. Yes, he thinks he’s the lone voice shining the light into the darkness, but I think we know what’s more likely.

  4. mAc Chaos says:

    By the way, is your problem that she wants to teach creationism in schools? Or just that she’s religious? Because she doesn’t want to teach it. That’s a lie.

  5. ph says:

    You seem to sit happily in the Dawkins camp when it comes to views of God. I have a problem with Dawkins in that his science comes very much in second place to his atheism, and I feel that any scientific thought the man has is probably so coloured by his atheism, that it is somewhat degraded. He treats evolution as a fact not a theory, although it is a pretty good one. Unfortunately there are many ‘yes buts’ with evolution, and unfortunately Dawkins is so blinkered by his deity hatred that he shouts these ‘problems’ down, rahter than give them considered thought, which is what a scientist would do.
    Deep down I think Dawkins hates the idea of God, becaue he cannot stand the idea that there could be something more grand than him.

  6. ph says:

    By the way, the 2 elder of my children now attend a state comp., and they are subjected to wall to wall New Labour/liberal propadanda, lots of it lies, so why not teach creationism, its no worse than the nonsense that thay are currently taught

  7. Citizen Sane says:

    By the way, is your problem that she wants to teach creationism in schools? Or just that she’s religious?

    Neither to be precise. My problem is her not objecting to the teaching of creationism in science classes; a stance so preposterously boneheaded, cretinous and backward we might as well just give up as a species. Masses of information and scientific inquiry at our fingertips and here’s a VP candidate in the most developed nation on the planet happy to have the childlike explanations of the Old Testament presented as an “alternative theory”.


  8. WandererLover says:

    Nicely-put. Still – I’d fuck the arse off ‘er!!

  9. mAc Chaos says:

    My problem is her not objecting to the teaching of creationism in science classes; a stance so preposterously boneheaded, cretinous and backward we might as well just give up as a species.

    She’s not for teaching it. It’s up to the classroom, according to her. But she was saying if it did come up as a student’s question or something like that then there’s nothing wrong with discussing it.

  10. ph says:

    did you know that your old dead blog is still getting lots of recent comments about the cyprus tavern in Manchester – amazing

  11. Citizen Sane says:

    I know! Of all the things I’ve written it appears more people want to talk about old pubs in Manchester than anything else…..

  12. Goiday_MyD says:

    Well ph, Dawkins cannot put atheism in front of his science, because, as he states in both his book “The God Delusion” and in a recent discussion, he is not a full atheist.
    He is an agnostic atheist, so he does put his science in front of his atheism and puts his push for freedom of speaking about beliefs in front of that. I agree that we should be able to publicly vilify a stupid belief system if we so wish, because it isn’t vilifying any people, just their ideas, which deserve to be publicly scrutinized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Citizen Sane
Citizen Sane

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,305 other followers

%d bloggers like this: