Creationism Update

According to Exodus, the ten plagues are rivers turning to bloods, frog overpopulation, swarms of gnats, swarms of flies, diseased livestock, festering boils on people and animals, hail storms, locusts, darkness, and then the death of the firstborn. Apparently they missed one- the spread of creationism:

A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.

State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.

Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.

School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.

Some debate, hunh? One side presents evidence for scientific inquiry and scrutiny, the other side thumps a bible, says “God did it,” and launches a political campaign to change biology books and make your kid stupid. We have already dispensed (I have, at any rate) the silly notion that intelligent design is something other than creationism wrapped up in fancy new clothes, but just in case it was not clear enough, let’s do it one more time:

Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, “intelligent design” is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one “candidate for the role of designer” need apply. Dembski himself–even while trying to deny this implication–concedes that “if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence.” It must, he admits, be that of a “transcendent intelligence” to whom he euphemistically refers as “the big G.”

The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science–to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”

The insistence of “intelligent design” advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a “designer” who is susceptible of scientific study–in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god–metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish “intelligent design” to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.

Still think this ‘divine design’ is a real scientific theory and not some dressed up religiosity? Let’s see what the sponsor of the bill has to say:

When Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, stood up this week and simultaneously proclaimed that intelligent design theory doesn’t preach religion, but also that, the only people who will be upset about this are atheists, he nicely demonstrated what everyone already knows: Intelligent design theory is a pretty new package for old-fashioned creationism.

Still not convinced? OK:

“The divine design is a counter to the kids’ belief that we all come from monkeys. Because we didn’t,” said Buttars, the retired director of a private school for troubled boys. “It shocks me that our schools are teaching evolution as fact.”

Buttars will have the backing of the Eagle Forum, led by Gayle Ruzicka, who has independently pushed for divine design education in the schools.

“What an insult to teach children that they have evolved from a lower life to what they are now, and then they go home and learn that they are someone special, a child of God,” Ruzicka said. “This is not right.”

And if by some chance you are still not convinced, how ’bout this quote of sheer genius:

Buttars doesn’t disregard evolution completely, rather he believes God is the creator, but His creations have evolved within their own species.

“We get different types of dogs and different types of cats, but you have never seen a ‘dat,’ ” he said.

Linguists and Etymologists across the nation- Buttars is coming for you next. Seriously, though- if there is ever a contest for the dumbest thing ever said by a politician, that is my nomination.

Creationists- I am going to say this slowly. Not… Fooling… ANYONE. Except yourselves. Intelligent Design is Creationism. Divine Design is Creationism. Rinse and repeat.

And just because this is too funny to omit, I offer you this analysis of the creationism/intelligent design/divine design nonsense:

Now, if Creationists and ID advocates limited themselves to helpfully pointing out potential problems with Evolution, (and there are some), every good scientist would welcome their input. Science loves doubt. Science and doubt are a happily married couple. Where you find scientists that shie away from reasonably-expressed and reasonably-informed doubt, you have found bad scientists. But Creationists and ID advocates don’t point out holes in the science. They point out holes in the science and then try to caulk the holes with God.

Sometimes I have to check my son’s math homework. Since I have the same math skills as the fern in my bathroom, this is difficult for me. Nevertheless, when he presents me with something on the order of 8 + x = 13, I may stupidly suggest that the answer is “6,” or “3,” but I never think to suggest that the answer is “God.” I grant that if you hold that God exists, and can be all things, then, yep, I guess the answer could be God. But the more likely answer is “5.” (I got that correct, right?)

Now, let me say that I don’t think Darwinism by itself disproves the existence of God. It was never intended to. Evolution suggests an explanation for the origin of life, the survival of some species, and the extinction of others. There is nothing that forces us to conclude that God, however creatively you define that concept, is not directing evolution. Maybe He is. But, unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that He is. No evidence. None. Zero. And we cannot simply revert to the ways of our cave-dwelling, Mastodon-hunting, bush-and-rock-worshipping ancestors and go around filling every blank in our knowledge with “God.” At least we can’t unless we are willing to dismiss all of science.

I’ll tell you What’ the Matter With Kansas– it appears to be contagious. A plague, if you will.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






48 replies
  1. 1

    To borrow a phrase, Amen brother!

  2. 2
    gratefulcub says:

    I havent been to high school in a long time, so someone please fill me in on what is being taught these days. When I was there, we studied evolution. We were taught that species evolved over time, and we studied what factors caused these changes. When I got to college, we studied the same thing, in a bit more depth.

    But, at no time did we discuss the origins of life. Some different theories may have been mentioned, but it seemed universally accepted that origin of life theories were theories.

    My basic point/question is: Are kids really being taught that the origin of life was a single celled organism that evolved and produced all life on earth? Are they being taught that there is no God, there is only evolution?

  3. 3
    Wrye says:

    No and no. The second question doesn’t follow from the first, and single-celled organisms wouldn’t be the starting point, anyway. Think even simpler.

  4. 4
    MunDane says:

    This stupid attempt to quantify G*d as a mathematically certain construct is dumb. You cannot rectify Faith and Logic (and Science rests on Logic to function. Except when dealing with Global Warming…but I digress).

    It is an attempt to make a run at introducing an aspect of G*d into the school. I sincerely hope it fails, as well. The idea of Intelligent Design has to incorporate a religious figure into it. It is, by its own definition, devolving into the supernatural. And the superantural has no place in science. The supernatural is an article of Faith. You have to believe it happened once, and can never be repeated. (That is why it is called a miracle, folks, not a mundane event.) Science depends on repeating, observable, and doubtable results. Faith depends on non-repeating, mysterious and the belief of those who subscribe.

  5. 5
    gratefulcub says:

    My point was, Why is the Right all up in arms about evolution?
    Evolution isnt a debunking of the Bible, or their faith.

  6. 6
    John Cole says:

    Because they are insane. And, at times, virulently stupid. In this case, both.

  7. 7
    Fledemaus says:

    Great, just as biology is shaping up to be the next big thing in the 21st century (like physics in the 20th) These bozos are insuring wonderfully ignorant kids who will have to relearn everything once they get to college (until they make it manditory there, too)

  8. 8
    morinao says:

    The solution to 8 + x = 13 is not x = God, it’s x = Odin!

  9. 9
    Anderson says:

    This shit will come to Mississippi sooner or later, and I will go ballistic ….

  10. 10
    pough says:

    What do you mean by “evolution suggests an explanation for the origin of life”? Isn’t evolution regarding the origin of species and not life itself? If you’re saying what you seem to be saying, I don’t think that’s correct. If you’re trying to say something else, you might want to rephrase it. I could be wrong, though.

  11. 11
    pough says:

    What do you mean by “evolution suggests an explanation for the origin of life”? Isn’t evolution regarding the origin of species and not life itself? If you’re saying what you seem to be saying, I don’t think that’s correct. If you’re trying to say something else, you might want to rephrase it. I could be wrong, though.

    (BTW, does your wait time for posters include previewing? I didn’t post anything here at any time before, yet I’ve just been told that I have to wait before posting “again”…)

  12. 12
    John Cole says:

    Pough- my code is all buggered for this site.

    As to your question, I didn;t write that- the guy at the Mighty Middle did.

  13. 13
    Hokie says:

    The Panda’s Thumb had a good post on the psychology of the IDers, particularly how to go about arguing with them…http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001047.html

  14. 14
    ppgaz says:

    Back in the 1960’s I read an article by prominent scientists which stated, in so many words, that science does not and cannot disprove the existence of Dog. I mean, Allah. Whatever.

    They were right, of course, on a number of levels, one of which is this: The existence of God, so far, cannot be set up as a hypothesis that lends itself to scientific inquiry. If you get that, then …. you get it. If not, then you don’t.

    But the point is, science is no threat to God’s existence. What it threatens is man’s perception of how man ought to see God.

    Most religion is about how man should see God. That’s a whole different problem set.

    Actually, Darwin’s work does nothing to cause me to doubt the existence of God. But it does a lot to cause me to doubt that most men have any freakin idea what they are talking about, when they talk about God.

    The “threat” that creationists and ID-ers perceive isn’t to God, it’s to their own temporal power on earth to tell the rest us how to see God.

    I have my own patented two-word response to them, and the second word is, as you know if you know me, “you.”

  15. 15
    wrye says:

    What’s sad to me is how *small* the RRRRRRight conception of God seems to be. (not to be confused with the everyday Right) Not to bore anyone with philosophy, but the only thing threatened by evolution is the idea that God has to be an old guy with a beard on a cloud throwing thuderbolts around who looks just like us and us like him. If that isn’t literally true, then your conception of God either has to get bigger or smaller, and arguing for a “God of The Gaps” is retreating to the smallest conception possible.

    It’s bad science, but even worse theology. But temporal power, that’s another matter.

  16. 16
    JG says:

    ‘The “threat” that creationists and ID-ers perceive isn’t to God, it’s to their own temporal power on earth to tell the rest us how to see God.’

    Amen Brother

  17. 17
    myself says:

    some excerpts from a creationist book explaining how dinosaurs attacked Noahs ark:
    http://www.livejournal.com/use.....19211.html

  18. 18
    Jay C says:

    My point was, Why is the Right all up in arms about evolution?
    Evolution isnt a debunking of the Bible, or their faith.
    Posted by gratefulcub at June 8, 2005 04:21 PM

    Actually, cub, it IS: and has been for the last 146 years, ever since “The Origin of Species” first saw print. Biblical literalists/fundamentalists were just as active back then, and were still reeling from the shock of finding out (via what we would nowadays call “science”-geology) that the earth was NOT actually just 6000 or so years old. For whatever reason, though, the Bible-heads never got as worked up about erosion & sandstone & the like as they did about theories of “life” – and especially human life; and so the science/religion divide became a permanent schism (a fact which annoyed Darwin, who was fairly conventionally religious, n o end).
    The other commenters are right, IMO: it’s not at all about the science, it’s about the power and social control. Just like it ALWAYS is with religion.

  19. 19
    Jay C says:

    My point was, Why is the Right all up in arms about evolution?
    Evolution isnt a debunking of the Bible, or their faith.
    Posted by gratefulcub at June 8, 2005 04:21 PM

    Actually, cub, it IS: and has been for the last 146 years, ever since “The Origin of Species” first saw print. Biblical literalists/fundamentalists were just as active back then, and were still reeling from the shock of finding out (via what we would nowadays call “science”-geology) that the earth was NOT actually just 6000 or so years old. For whatever reason, though, the Bible-heads never got as worked up about erosion & sandstone & the like as they did about theories of “life” – and especially human life; and so the science/religion divide became a permanent schism (a fact which annoyed Darwin, who was fairly conventionally religious, n o end).
    The other commenters are right, IMO: it’s not at all about the science, it’s about the power and social control. Just like it ALWAYS is with religion.

  20. 20
    CadillaqJaq says:

    It’s all an illusion… nothing is real (except as we perceive it…).

    Y’all can chew on that premise for a while, ;)

  21. 21
    KC says:

    I spent hard time in the Christian Fundamentalist community, including 2 1/2 years at a Christian bookstore peddling creationist (and lots of other) garbage. Why do they believe the way they do about evolution? It’s pretty simple: if you take the bible literally and think the earth was created in a week, then you can’t believe in modern geology, physics, biology, archeology, or even history. In fact, it’s weird, but there’s a whole support structure setup to help people keep from accepting even the simplest of scientific truths in some cases. Here’s a breakdown of it: if you were a fundmentalist in your average geology class in college who was learning about stratigrahpy, if you went to Sunday school that week and denounced what you learned as being unbiblical because the teacher never mentioned Noah’s Flood, everyone around you would praise you for being “straight,” “upright,” or “true” to God. However, if you went to Sunday school and told everyone you learned about a new theory that accounted for how layers and layers of earth were deposited on top of each over millions of years, how it also made perfect sense with fossil data, you’d probably be forced to discuss your new theory with the teacher. Everyone in class would see you as “back sliding” on God and would probably say a prayer on your behalf to give you the “strength” to make it through your courses without evil influences. In other words, the more science you accepted apart from what the bible says, the more you’d be ostracized.

    Trust me, it’s a powerful persuasive tool to make you feel like you can’t be a Christian without believing literally in everything the bible says.

  22. 22
    caroline says:

    Sounds like devine design is just one big self esteem program.

  23. 23
    bigd504 says:

    The difference between scientific evolution & dumbed-down design was expressed best in last Friday’s WSJ science column; where (I am citing from memory not the paper)a biologist stated that science proceeds from doubt.
    Science allows for ideas to be proved (or not proved) based upon the collected data-while religion insists that faith trumps doubt & that their god demands belief no matter what happens or what is observed.

  24. 24
    Garth says:

    There’s an excellent blog post that sheds some light on the pickle the creationists are in – “The Argument Clinic”: http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/.....linic.html

    On a sidenote, I find it quite interesting that Intelligent Design is now so routinely referred to as ‘divine design’ – looks like someone didn’t get the memo. Either that, or they’ve already given up on the whole stealth thing.

  25. 25
    p.lukasiak says:

    If intelligent design was a reality, there wouldn’t be so many stupid people in the world — let alone a duck-billed platypus.

  26. 26

    The other commenters are right, IMO: it’s not at all about the science, it’s about the power and social control.

    No, actually, it’s about the theology. Or more to the point, that theology trumps science, and that [somehow] the first book of the Bible having pretty much been discounted as a factual recounting of creation by the evidence just means the evidence was planted by Satan, or that the interpretation of the evidence is guided by Satan.

    I belong to a church that’s above-average hard-over against consideration that the Earth is over 6000 years (approximately) old. They don’t actually teach that as doctrine, mind you, it’s simply that discussion of even this possibility is an acknowledgement that the Bible may in fact not be 100% accurate, which is contrary to doctrine. This church has no interest in political control. Churches that are are the fringe-activists (see: Falwell, etc) and the Catholics. Catholics, though, are interested in a more behind-the-scenes brand of control, and seem less interested in strict interpretation of the Bible than Protestants, in general.

    This area of disagreement between myself and my church will likely eventually result in the end of my association there. It’s pretty much why I turned down a request for me to serve on the church council.

  27. 27
    metalgrid says:


    If intelligent design was a reality, there wouldn’t be so many stupid people in the world — let alone a duck-billed platypus.

    Shouldn’t that be the other way around? If evolution and survival of the fit enough was a reality, there wouldn’t be so many stupid people in the world.

  28. 28
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    No metal, because all you need to do is breed for evolution to succeed. As long as you managed to produce offspring, you are successful.

    Which is an excellent explanation for homosexuality and the existence of a higher power. If evolution was the only power, then homosexuality would eventually weed itself out, ergo, there must be a god cause homosexuality exists.

    Thus Fags prove god.

    But I’m not feeling snarky and bitter at certain portions of society.

  29. 29
    brenda vonahsen says:

    Slartibartfast? I’ve seen that name before, some philosophical ‘zine. Hermenutics? anyway, back on topic.

    I’ve been interested in the creationism debate for the past twenty years or so. This comes up every few years and then disappears again. Unfortunately, the creationists have a renewed sense that it might actually be possible for them to achieve their goals. And it is important to remember that those goals extend far beyond the life sciences to include sociology, psycology, anthropology, this is, pretty much every subject taught woudl be rewritten along narrow sectarian lines.

    One of the more humorous arguments that I remember was a phd thesis (!) that attempted to disprove modern set theory using the Bible. The guy had a real hard time wrapping his mind around infinte sets. Only God is infinite ya know.

    An important point to remember is that these folks do not represent all of Christianity, even though they think they are the only true Christians. They are a subculture making a bid to become the dominant culture. Very dangerous IMHO.

  30. 30
    Sojourner says:

    DecidedFenceSitter:

    According to your logic there would be no genetic-caused childhood diseases that kill children before they have a chance to reproduce. Have you ever heard of recessive genes?

  31. 31
    Kathy K says:

    Hokie… thanks (I think) for that link to the Panda’s Thumb. I’ve just spent much time looking through posts (and comments).

    Good stuff – ‘talk.origins’ (a UseNet newsgroup I frequented for years — years ago) in a blog. I’ve added it to my blogroll.

    Thanks again.

  32. 32
    Ed Darrell says:

    Buttars complains about teaching kids that humans evolved from “lower” forms of life?

    Well, it’s not as if the message of the New Testament has anything to do with the Savior being born humbly, or anything. Buttars appears to know that Jesus was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and lived ostentatiously as a young prince, never having to work a lick . . .

  33. 33
    Simon says:

    We may ridicule the Intelligent Design (ID) people, but the ridicule fails to address their arguments. Publicly many people may remain silent amid your insults, but privately, since you and other evolutionists tend to leave the ID argument almost completely untouched, I think many people than you think believe the ID position is not as “stupid” as you claim.

    Apparently significant majorities in America ascribe to some form of Intelligent Design, with surprisingly large numbers of Americans thinking life began pretty much as Genesis describes.
    http://www.unl.edu/rhames/cour.....l-poll.htm.
    http://www.editorandpublisher......1000728154

    What is striking about this is that Americans believe as they do despite nearly a century of being taught the “empirical facts” of evolution from the time they are small children in schools well into college adulthood. After nearly a century of ridicule, much of it unfair, dishonest, propagandistic and quite vicious (SEE http://www.gennet.org/facts/scopes.html and http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/inherit/dif.html ), Americans still largely reject evolution and accept creationism.

    Clearly then, while Darwinians have almost completely commandeered the minds of academia, they have failed to win the minds of the public. Though they frequently insult and caricaturize creationists and ID proponents as ignorant, theistic boobs, the majority of Americans still sense the creationists are correct.

    I think the trend in America is toward left thinking. Therefore we will see more of what we’ve always seen– more family dissolution, more divorce, more abortion, crime, general social pathology and more people who reject belief in a God to Whom they must account. This decay will permit a greater belief in evolution.

    But before this comes, we may see some significant shifts away from Darwinism.

    What the IDers are about to offer America is an intellectual justification for what most Americans by faith now think is true. Americans think as they do mostly because they just cannot fathom that all of this happened by chance! Intuitively they sense the existence of an Intelligent Creator in the things they see around them. Darwinists have not been able to shake this faith. But what IDers seem near to accomplishing is an intellectual framework wherein the average American can entertain, seriously ponder, and even defend creationism at least to himself. If after the study of ID Americans cannot defend creationism, they perhaps will at a minimum be able to confidently reject Darwinism.

    I think Darwinists kid themselves and do their own positions a grave disservice by using essentially mere bluster to attempt rejecting the power of the ID position.

    I have read a fair amount of this debate and I am very pleased with the edifice the IDers are systematically building against the Darwinian paradigm.

    Up to now Darwinists have merely used the courts, ridicule, academic exclusion, the press, flawed movies, plays and other propaganda against ID, and none of it has worked. Some scientists are trying to fight back, but ID seems as mighty a threat as always.

    Here is an exchange between Kenneth Miller and Demski. Read the two papers very closely. Read them honestlywithout attempting to hold onto your pet theory. Then try to honestly tell yourself the IDers are really kooks.

    http://www.millerandlevine.com.....ticle.html
    http://www.designinference.com.....sponse.htm

    We see Miller fails to assault the argument before him. He assumes, for example, that a removed structure from within an irreducibly complex super structure that may have functioned apart from the super-structure, proves that the super-structure is NOT irreducibly complex. Miller is quite obviously wrong here, as Demski incisively points out. If the super structure falls apart and no explanatory mechanism exists in all the scientific literature showing how it, not an infinitesimal piece of it, could have developed in the first place, then the Darwinian model for this structure does not work to explain it certainly not yet. And since macro structures depend upon micro-structures, the Darwinian model must first explain what has not yet been explained (and apparently cannot ever be explained, according the the IDers).

    It is a fascinating debate and the ID part in it has teeth, perhaps big sharp teeth.

  34. 34
    Pat says:

    Public support for ID is probably more a reflection of declining education standards than anything else.

    Science is not a popularity contest. What the majority of people believe is irrelevant.

  35. 35
    Boobah says:

    Worse, ID supports the notion that anything unknown is inherently unknowable, because it claims that the difficult-to-understand bit is God at work.

    Not to mention that if we’re the result of intelligent design, the designer’s not so hot. Example: Vertebrate eyes. Focusing by flexing the lense? Yeah, that’s a great idea.

  36. 36
    Simon says:

    ID supports the notion that anything unknown is inherently unknowable, because it claims that the difficult-to-understand bit is God at work.

    This is not exactly true. The ID’ers are claiming that a darwinian explanation for variety in nature based upon patterns in the fossil record and other macro level observations, is insufficient when the items being observed all depend inexorably upon micro structures (essentially none of which are explained by the current darwinian paradigm).

    It is a very powerful point. Darwinism must first explain the mechanisms that comprise the macro forms before making sweeping conclusions about the origins of those forms.

    ID’ers claim, and I think they are correct, that Darwinism has gotten the cart before the horse. Indeed, ID’ers are in effect claiming Darwinians haven’t even seen the need to have horses pull their carts, so wedded to the existing paradigm they have become.

    Where I respectfully part with ID’ers is in the conclusion that a knowing mind is to account for the variety we see in the world. I do believe an Intelligence created it all, mind you, but I don’t think we can get to my conclusion merely because ID’ers have shown Darwinism incapable of describing history.

    I think ID’ers think intelligence is required because of the nature of the structures, their complexity, etc.,etc. I suppose there is some power here. But it would appear the real acheivment of ID has so far been to assault the foundation of the neo-darwinian synthesis such that I think no honest and reasonable person can now accept it with confidence.

  37. 37
    Tod Goldberg says:

    If you’d like to read an interesting artice about ID and evolution, you should read the May 30th edition of the New Yorker. ID has teeth all right…and they are proven to be false. Even the leading proponents say as much in the article.

  38. 38
    DamnRight says:

    There is an assumption being made by those in the ID camp… i.e. if evolution can be be shown to have flaws, ID, is, by default, the one & only alternative…
    … analogy… given 1+x=3… in solving for x, one cannot argue that since x does not =4, then x must =7…

  39. 39
    booboo says:

    I believe more in creation than evolution. However, I would like to say that Chris Buttars is somewhat of a kook. This is only his latest foray into pushing a personal political vendetta to make a name for himself in the media. Every year it’s something different. A lot of people in his district don’t like him too much, but they keep electing him. I heard him at a Memorial Day presentation one time. One of his bills the previous year had been to require saying the pledge of allegiance in the public schools. He seemed ignorant of the fact that they already did. Instead of a speech praising veterans, he railed against the public schools for “opposing” his pledge bill. Actually, there really hadn’t been any opposition, it was pretty much in his head. The public schools still say the pledge, just like they always have.

    I have to agree, the dat comment is vintage Buttars. He referred to an elected official as “the gay” earlier this year. He has a big mouth in which he inserts his foot a lot of the time.

    He really does remind me of a slimy weasel or something. You can’t help but get that feeling around him.

    I never had any problem learning evolution in school. I still believe in creationism, but don’t have a problem with evolution at all. I fit some of the principles into my own personal beliefs regarding the creation.

    I just say nobody knows for sure and let it go at that. It is true that the creation position is based on belief more than any other thing. For me, the complexity and scientific laws of the world tends to lend itself to having a creator.

    But I don’t let it become a pseudo-religion as some on both sides do. I prefer to worry what’s happening now and in the future, rather than the very distant past.

  40. 40

    The latest on the Creationism front

    Filed under General Stupidity, John Cole has an update on the attempt by the Radical Christian Right to return the United States to the 16th century. This time it’s the State of Utah, the state that had to decrease the Mormon influence on state gover…

  41. 41

    Self-organizing complexity and intelligent design

    The Intelligent Design argument holds that that the universe, and in particular living organisms within it, are too complicated to have arise spontaneously, and therefore must have been created. (Forget for the moment Hume’s obvious question about who …

  42. 42

    Dumb and Dumbererererer

    Starring: The Great State of Utah!…

  43. 43

    Extremism in Pursuit of Moderation is No Vice

    John Cole on Creationism: Some debate, hunh? One side presents evidence for scientific inquiry and scrutiny, the other side thumps a bible, says “God did it,” and launches a political campaign to change biology books and make your kid stupid. We have a…

  44. 44

    […] PZ Myers is going to have a damned stroke when he sees this. Best of all, this is from our good buddyUtah State Senator Chis Buttars (R- West Jordan), wingnut extraordinare. You remember him, don’t you: […]

  45. 45

    […] PZ Myers is going to have a damned stroke when he sees this. Best of all, this is from our good buddy Utah State Senator Chis Buttars (R- West Jordan), wing-nut extraordinaire. You remember him, don’t you: […]

  46. 46

    […] Considering his first resort was to publicly make an ass out of himself repeatedly, and then, just for good measure, go to the editorial page of USA Today and give the whole nation a dose of his foolishness, you can imagine how eager I am to see what the ‘last resort’ will look like. […]

  47. 47

    […] It looks like my favorite moron is back in the news: […]

  48. 48

    […] We’ll just skip Buttars more absurd declarations. If you’re interested, Balloon Juice has a a good run down . It’s not nutjobs like Buttars that bother me. Idiots will eventually stumble on their own foolishness. Indeed, Buttars has recently dropped the subject. It is the dishonesty of ID proponents that really bothers me. But proponents of intelligent design have a message for Buttars: Don’t help us. […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] We’ll just skip Buttars more absurd declarations. If you’re interested, Balloon Juice has a a good run down . It’s not nutjobs like Buttars that bother me. Idiots will eventually stumble on their own foolishness. Indeed, Buttars has recently dropped the subject. It is the dishonesty of ID proponents that really bothers me. But proponents of intelligent design have a message for Buttars: Don’t help us. […]

  2. […] It looks like my favorite moron is back in the news: […]

  3. […] Considering his first resort was to publicly make an ass out of himself repeatedly, and then, just for good measure, go to the editorial page of USA Today and give the whole nation a dose of his foolishness, you can imagine how eager I am to see what the ‘last resort’ will look like. […]

  4. […] PZ Myers is going to have a damned stroke when he sees this. Best of all, this is from our good buddy Utah State Senator Chis Buttars (R- West Jordan), wing-nut extraordinaire. You remember him, don’t you: […]

  5. […] PZ Myers is going to have a damned stroke when he sees this. Best of all, this is from our good buddyUtah State Senator Chis Buttars (R- West Jordan), wingnut extraordinare. You remember him, don’t you: […]

  6. Extremism in Pursuit of Moderation is No Vice

    John Cole on Creationism: Some debate, hunh? One side presents evidence for scientific inquiry and scrutiny, the other side thumps a bible, says “God did it,” and launches a political campaign to change biology books and make your kid stupid. We have a…

  7. Dumb and Dumbererererer

    Starring: The Great State of Utah!…

  8. Self-organizing complexity and intelligent design

    The Intelligent Design argument holds that that the universe, and in particular living organisms within it, are too complicated to have arise spontaneously, and therefore must have been created. (Forget for the moment Hume’s obvious question about who …

  9. The latest on the Creationism front

    Filed under General Stupidity, John Cole has an update on the attempt by the Radical Christian Right to return the United States to the 16th century. This time it’s the State of Utah, the state that had to decrease the Mormon influence on state gover…

Comments are closed.