This one comes from the Daily Reveille, a student newspaper at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Its full name, explained here, is Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, but it’s known as LSU.
In that publication we read Believing in evolution doesn’t make you scientific. The author is described as “a 19-year-old medical physics junior.” It’s not fair to judge all of LSU by this one student-written item, so we’ll try not to do so. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has been losing in the polls, so his solution is to distance himself from the other candidates by portraying himself as the rational candidate.
After hearing fellow candidate Rick Perry’s doubts on evolution, Huntsman jumped at the chance to attack Perry, gain attention and make himself appear smart and scientific to the media and liberals. … Like most liberals, Huntsman thinks if he uses the words “science” and “evolution” in the same sentence he’ll be called an intellectual.
You know where this is going, don’t you? Okay then, hang on and enjoy the ride as we read some more:
But nothing Huntsman has said demonstrates he actually knows what science is. Science is fundamentally a search for the truth about the universe, and Perry’s acknowledgement of the holes in evolution theory manifests a much better understanding of science than Huntsman’s faith in scientists.
Lordy, lordy. The article continues:
Believers in evolution cling to the theory like babies to their moms, but most are so scared of hearing a different interpretation of evidence they refuse to listen to any skepticism. They speak of evolution as a fact, when, in reality, science never produces facts — only results we can interpret.
No facts! You didn’t know that, did you? Now you do. Here’s more:
To put into perspective why evolution will never be considered a fact no matter how hard liberals and Huntsman want it to be, consider walking into a room and seeing a lit candle with matches next to it. It seems as though someone lit the candle with the matches, but it is impossible to be sure how the candle was lit because you weren’t there when it was.
Aaaargh!! It’s the old “Were you there?” maneuver. This article is tragic, but stay with us and we’ll get through it together:
Scientific observations are classified into three categories: hypotheses, theories or laws. Hypotheses are the weakest interpretations of evidence, while theories garner more support. Laws are said to be the strongest explanations, but even they aren’t facts.
What is going on at LSU? Scientific laws don’t explain anything — they’re descriptive. It’s theories that offer explanations. It doesn’t take much Googling around to find some workable definitions: See Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions. Perhaps a better set of definitions is provided by the National Academy of Sciences: Definitions of Evolutionary Terms.
Now we get to the hard-core creationism:
Contrary to Huntsman’s claim, the Republican Party is proving more scientific because of its legitimate recognition of the gaps in evolution.
To point out one weakness, evolution relies on the assumption that beneficial genetic information has been repeatedly added to genomes throughout the history of the universe. But not even Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist from Oxford University, could name a single mutation that has added beneficial information.
Wow — Dawkins can’t name even one! And now we come to the article’s end:
The Republican Party doesn’t need a candidate like Jon Huntsman, who has no clue what science is and refuses to accept that alternative explanations to evolution are plausible. It needs candidates like Perry who would allow the freedom for true scientific inquiry.
There’s not much we can say here, so we’ll just wish the author the best of luck in his study of “medical physics,” whatever that might be at LSU.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.