THE year just ended was a nightmare for creationists — especially the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). It was not only the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, but also the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. Celebrations of reason were everywhere, and all the while the Discoveroids sulked and snarled.
The only thing that sustained the Discoveroids through 2009, aside from the salaries provided by their benefactors, was the hope that when that wretched year ended they’d have clear sailing for spreading their creationist dogma. But such is not to be.
We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from The Royal Society: The establishment of science, which appears in The Economist, a most worthy publication edited in the City of Westminster, London. The bold font was added by us:
THE streets surrounding St James’s Palace in London are dotted with gentlemen’s clubs, many of which now also admit women. This year, one such establishment is marking its 350th anniversary. The club in question is not merely a meeting place for like-minded members, however: it is the society that founded modern science.
Science? How very un-creationist! Let’s read on:
The first fellows of the Royal Society, as it is now known, were followers of Sir Francis Bacon, a 17th-century statesman and philosopher who argued that knowledge could be gained by testing ideas through experiments.
Oh, how horrible! Creationists know that’s most definitely not where knowledge comes from. We continue:
[T]hey determined to meet every week to discuss scientific matters and to witness experiments conducted by different members of the group. In so doing, they invented the processes on which modern science rests, including scientific publishing and peer review, and made English the primary language of scientific discourse.
You can see, dear reader, that this is truly the origin of the creationists’ problem. Here’s more:
Sir Isaac Newton, who defined the laws of gravity, became president of the Royal Society in 1703. Its members (no more than 44 outstanding British scientists are elected to fellowship each year, along with up to eight foreign members) go on to win Nobel prizes; indeed, 74 of the society’s 1,300 living members are Nobel laureates.
We’re not certain of this, but we strongly suspect that not a single member is a creationist. Moving along:
Such is the excitement at the Royal Society’s anniversary that Britain’s state broadcaster, the BBC, has created a year of science-related programming to celebrate it.
Oh no! Yet another year of un-creationist celebrations. A deep depression is gripping the gang in Seattle.
This is the article’s end:
The British Museum is holding a series of lectures on science’s contribution to the objects that it holds. The Royal Society itself is organising a festival billed as “a huge and splendid celebration of the joy and vitality of science, its importance to society and culture, and its role in shaping who we are and who we will become”. A proud tradition, indeed.
The year now beginning looks like a good one for celebrating rational thought — and a bad one for the Discoveroids. Sorry, guys; you’re on the wrong side of history.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.