Tag Archives: intelligent design

Washington Post’s knuckle-dragging grasp of evolution

What do you say of the ‘debate’(?) about evolution when WaPo’s education columnist Jay Mathews supports teaching intelligent design in Science classes? It makes you want to punch him right in his Hiatt (in case Fred’s hanging around) . .

Santorum’s good but hated education idea
Jay Mathews | Fred’s Employer

I won’t say who is getting my vote for president. But I confess a nonpartisan desire that former senator Rick Santorum (R) remain in the race long enough to focus attention on an intriguing, if deeply controversial, educational issue.

Let’s see, maybe I have a WaPo reader hat. Or posture. *ahrrem* ‘This is intriguing. What is this controversial issue? I am a smart and reasonable man. Therefore I am interested columnist Mathews. Please good sir, tell me.’

So hang on, Senator. Show a little courage and you could spark new interest in one of the few causes we share: encouraging high school discussion of alternatives to evolutionary theory.

Teaching all sides of the evolution issue is supported in opinion polls.

Evolution you say? Sounds fascinating and complicated. Let’s us teach all sides of this controversy. What could be the harm? Thanks Jay, you’ve performed an invaluable service and I’ll go back to playing Angry Haystacks. Until the next fuss, taa.’

But now hear shrill Science man. He will un-intrigue and de-fascinate everything in a depressing WaPo-free manner —->

There exists a super-secret place where we scientists squirrel away the many sides of the evolution ‘debate.’ Shocking, isn’t it? We are aware of all argument traditions.

You may find the many many arguments in a school of thought called . . ‘Evolution.’ What? No kidding! It came out of arguments. Think of it as a 152 year-long Science thread. Everyone who isn’t trolling agrees that the argument currently stands: Life on Earth evolved from earlier, less complicated forms by way of natural selection operating in and upon environmental flux and genetic variation blah blah. There’s more to it, but it’s getting late.

How do you think scientists operate, incidentally? By way of conspiracy? Do you think a whole bunch of the older ones got together and planned the Theory of Evolution? Is it a product, like GM’s Chevy Volt? That’s a fine looking car, but what if I want a four door? Reasonable people want alternatives.

When something is the product of every alternative being argued and tested across a century and a half, there are no immediate alternatives. All the currently possible ‘sides’ have been exhausted. That’s how you build a great theory. Evolution is one of the greatest theories in history.

If you want to know how science guys like me feel when a WaPo columnist starts considering Martian Deconstruction for the curriculum, read this:

It is important to note that Santorum and I have different reasons for wanting high schools to allow discussion of intelligent design — the notion that some supernatural force (not necessarily God) brought life to earth.

Danger! Science is perfectly equipped to deal with us and our world. Because we exist. Science can never address the non-natural, non-existent world. We can’t tell you how often my guitar farts in the 23rd dimension. No one knows who won the lemonade parabola rodeo. Who knows what sort of hand ‘Super’ played in evolution? If there’s no evidence for it, why should science bother with it? Let’s argue about anti-weather. Let’s build skyscrapers from gestures.

The minute you drag fake things into the reality-obsessed argument, chaos ensues. The attempt to bring creationism into the world of science is an attempt to destroy science. I hope I made that clear. Also:

It was hard for me to become interested in classroom explanations of natural selection when I was a student. Introducing a contrary theory like intelligent design and having students discuss its differences from Darwinism would enliven the class.

Jay Mathews is a disgrace.

Share