I was reading this LA Times story about the quashing of intelligent design creationism in Michigan, and I was stunned by this (italics mine):
Richard Thompson, leader of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, said intelligent design should have a home in science classes. The center describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians."It would make students more knowledgeable about science and more interested in science," he said in a phone interview. "Evolution is a theory. It's not a fact."
Evolution is a theory--in the scientific sense of the word. I am certain Richard Thompson knows exactly what scientists mean by a theory. I'm sure he has read and heard many, many times the explanation that a scientific theory is not idle theory, but supported by numerous lines of evidence, often from multiple disciplines--as is the case for the theory of evolution by common descent.
And he does not care one damn bit. He, like all liars, will say anything to serve his own purposes. He, like many creationists, is the type of zealot who will lie and disemble to get what he believes is Good.
Newsflash to creationists: you might be taken a little more seriously if you weren't disingenious liars.
- Log in to post comments
I agree with you completely as to the misuse of the word theory, but can't help but be a bit surprised by the shock you showed at this. Claims that evolution is "just a theory" is the most common thing heard from cretins (supporters of creationism/intelligent design). You must have heard this many times before.
Of course these cretins will say anything to push their religious views. For example, they have "scientific investigations" proving that the world is only 4000 years old!
Not much of a surprise coming from anyone associated with the Thomas More "Law" Center.
What a douche-bag.
Can it be any more obvious that all the money that's supposed to go towards research and publication for ID is really just for marketing? I submit that it can not.
I remember seeing Duane Gish at one of his campus appearances years ago. He calmly and smilingly rattled off a list of "problems" with evolution, hitting all of the standard complaints: spontaneous generation of life was disproved by Pasteur, the second law of thermodynamics, circular reasoning in dating fossils and dating strata, etc. It occurred to me that he had heard the refutations of each of his points (probably man, many times), but he could still refer to the second law of thermodynamics as if it was still a valid anti-evolution argument. Creationists believe their positions out of faith, so scientific arguments don't have to be valid -- they just need to fool the ignorant. And that's what he was trying to do. I doubt he was insincere. He probably just didn't care if his arguments were bogus. The ends, after all, always justify the means.
"I doubt he was insincere. He probably just didn't care if his arguments were bogus."
Isn't it the heart of insincerity to make an argument that you neither know nor care is bogus, while pretending that you have a reason for believing it to be valid?
"I've got a theory -- That it's a demon! A dancing demon -- nah, there's something that's not right there."
Like Thomas More, the man has lost his head.
ya, we nipped that sheet(sp) in the butt. you gotta give the faithheads credit, they are energizer bunnies.