Creationist Wisdom #291: Louisiana Professor

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It’s titled Take evolution out of schools also. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis.

Although we usually omit the writer’s identity, not wanting to embarrass humble citizens, we’ll make an exception here. The letter is signed “Armando Corripio, professor emeritus, Baton Rouge.” We found a website that describes him: Armando Benito Corripio. He teaches computer engineering, providing us with yet another data-point supporting the Salem Hypothesis. Okay, here comes the letter:

This is in regard to the report regarding the approval received for the removal of creationism and intelligent design from science courses and textbooks.

He’s probably talking about this: Creationism Banned in New Orleans Schools. Let’s see what he has to say about it:

I also applaud this action, but recommend that the theory of evolution be also removed from those science courses.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is great! Let’s read on:

I believe that if our students’ performance in science is to be improved, they should only be exposed to solid scientific principles and experimentally proven theories. The theory of evolution has some holes in explaining, among other things, how the universe and life came into existence.

Yeah, Darwin was pretty sloppy about that. We continue:

I believe the discussion of these theories belong in university courses on philosophy, religious studies and the like, not in science courses.

Right — put evolution in religious studies where it belongs! Here’s more:

Even then it has been reported that universities have let some professors go, and the Smithsonian let one of its scientists go, for writing articles supporting the idea of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This guy has seen Expelled! too many times. He’s undoubtedly thinking of the Sternberg peer review controversy involving an article by Discoveroid Stephen C. Meyer.

And now we come to the letter’s end:

It amazes me that in the 21st century educators are behaving like the monks of the Spanish Inquisition in suppressing ideas that disagree with theirs.

As we’ve remarked before, there seems to be no hope for Louisiana. Fun letter, however.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #291: Louisiana Professor

  1. gnome de net

    On a positive note: only one of the current 18 comments at The Advocate website supports Prof. Corripio.

  2. Alex Shuffell

    If we should stop teaching the theory of evolution because it does not explain how the universe came into existence should we also stop teaching the theory of quantum electro dynamics and theory of relativity. They can’t explain how how organisms adapt and evolve, they don’t explain the origins of life either?

  3. @Alex Shuffell – At the risk of engaging in ad hominem, I would suggest that one not teach computer engineering, because that does not explain “how the universe and life came into existence”.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Part of the entertaining value of these letters to the editors is they haven’t seemed to engage with online discussion of their ideas. If they had at all, they would have learned to refine their arguments, and not make stupid mistakes like thinking that evolution should explain the origin of life. In web parlance, ‘what a n00b!’

  5. Charley Horse

    That guy is Catholic, too. Must not get his straight poop from
    the Pope.

  6. It amazes me that in the 21st century educators are behaving like the monks of the Spanish Inquisition in suppressing ideas that disagree with theirs.

    I’d be interested in seeing that data, Professor Corripio. Exactly how many 21st century American teachers are engaging in torture and mass murder to suppress ideas they disagree with?

  7. Letters to the editor like this one always bring comments that we should also abandon the theory of gravity or germ theory or some other science, the idea being if you can ignore one, why not the others. The problem with those comments seems to be a lack of understanding as to why people reject evolution. It’s not because they can’t understand it or they’re stupid. Most people have a basic grasp of science and how it works. The problem seems to be that many people have a near pathological need to feel special. Unlike any other branch of science, evolutionary biology tells us flat out, that we as a species were not created in god’s image (unless he was a single celled organism) and we aren’t any more special than any other animal, we’re just here by chance.
    I think the best solution to this would be to teach the psychology of religion in school. Expose children to all religions past and present and why people believe what they believe. This would provide children a firm grasp of reality while not diminishing their potential for “spirituality” if they desire it. What could be better than to have a full understanding of all religious beliefs? That way if you wanted to base your life around religious philosophies, could cherry pick the best of any or all religions.
    I think I’ve made this rant before……..

  8. It amazes me that in the 21st century educators are behaving like the monks of the Spanish Inquisition …

    Ah! I see what Curmie did there, bolding certain text in anticipation of the obvious response. Well, I not falling for that, because I have other tricks up my sleeve, and no one expects …

    Herb Alpert & the Tiujana Brass!

  9. I agree with Paul S that the psychology of religion should be standard stuff in schools. Andy Thompson’s 2009 talk “Why we believe in gods” is a great summary.

  10. Hey, say what you will about his creationism, its good to see that the standard by which all coercive thought censorship is measured remains the RCC.

  11. I didn’t think he was a biologist or so.

  12. I would take Paul S’s insights one step further – many of these folks fear evolution because they believe that their children will accept the ideas of common descent, humans existing much longer than 6000 years, and so on, which would lead to them losing their faith,losing their salvation and spending eternity apart from their YEC parents and relatives.

  13. First, if my information is correct, this guy is a “professor” in the same way that Bill Cosby is a “doctor”. Second, he appears to be… an engineer!

    (Pause for lots of cussing and swearing on my end…)

    To Armando:
    From: Gary (of “The List of Garys” Fame)

    Sir,

    Seriously, dude, WTF? You don’t even know, let alone understand, the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, but you feel you’re qualified to judge either or both? Assuming you have a PhD (and that’s a shaky assumption based on my bit of research, since you claim to be a “professor” but you’re not showing up on the rolls of any college or university that I can find), then your PhD stands for “piled hip deep”, not “doctor of philosophy”.
    Mind you, it’s due to unthinking trolls such as yourself that has caused real scientists to show that the theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in history. The more you attempt to show the alleged “holes” in it, the more you show people with even a modicum of understanding that it is, in fact, doing just fine.
    Finally, you, as an engineer, should know better. Seriously. You allegedly use math and physics in the course of your work. I say “allegedly” because now I worry what you’re using. If I see a picture of your office, I won’t be surprised to see a deck of Tarot cards and a jar of chicken bones. Really, you worry me. And, yet, because we’re talking about (Gasp!) evolution, all of that math and physics is no longer applicable? Either it works or it doesn’t. Which is it?

    Respectfully, XXX & OOO,

    Gary

    P.S. Remember, Armando, no one expects…

    Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass!

  14. GAAAAAH!

    Okay, I was wrong. Dr. Corripio is, in fact, a professor at LSU, not the engineer working in Baton Rouge.
    The good news is: Dr. Corripio is NOT(!) an engineer. He’s a computer… uh, guy. I’d say “scientist”, but that’s obviously not the case. Still, if you crack open the case of his computers, will I see hamsters toiling away? Doubt I’d see anything modern, for example silicon chips, since that requires an understanding of modern science. And we can’t have that since that kind of modern, scientific thinking leads to (GASP!) evil-ution!

    And now back to your regularly scheduled interwebz, already in progress…

    P.S. Waiting for the Doc Bill comments on this shmoe. Always a treat!

  15. retiredsciguy

    Gary, you’re probably right about “Armando Corripio, professor emeritus, Baton Rouge” not having anything modern in his computer — “emeritus” is a fancy word for “retired”. Judging from his comments, he must have retired during the era of punch cards, and it appears as though someone shuffled his deck.

    Signed, EmeritusSciGuy

  16. Don’t worry Gary, once Herb and the boys finish working this guy over with their instrumentals, he’ll confess to being a sanitation engineer.

    EmeritusSciGuy, that has a nice ring to it, you should consider keeping it.

  17. Retired Prof

    “Emeritus” is an interesting word. The prefix “e-” is a form of “ex-“, meaning “former,” “formerly,” or “out of it.” The rest of the word is obviously Latin for “merit.”

    When I introduce myself as a professor emeritus, I explain that it means “used to be worth something.”

  18. retiredsciguy

    @TA: Yeah, maybe I should have thought of that sooner. I can always introduce myself as “Seventh Grade Science Teacher Emeritus.”

  19. retiredsciguy says:

    I can always introduce myself as “Seventh Grade Science Teacher Emeritus.”

    I guess you could, but at some institutions the title is awarded, so not every retired professor can call himself an Emeritus professor.

  20. @ESG: Don’t knock it. My 7th grade science teacher had a huge impact on me. I didn’t know quite what I wanted to be yet at that age, but after his classes I knew it would be involved with science some way or other. On behalf of former 7th grade student everywhere, thank you.

  21. retiredsciguy says:

    I can always introduce myself as “Seventh Grade Science Teacher Emeritus.”

    I’m re-thinking this. It doesn’t appear that there’s any general rule. So go ahead and be an Emeritus. You’ve earned it.

  22. @ESG: As TA said, “EmeritusSciGuy, that has a nice ring to it, you should consider keeping it.”. I second that idea. Lord knows you’ve done more just by your words on this blog to help advance the cause of science than Armandio will ever do in his entire lifetime.

  23. As Supreme Chancellor of Curmudgeon University, I declare that everyone here can call himself Emeritus.

  24. retiredsciguy

    The Supreme Chancellor of Curmudgeon declares, “Everyone here can call himself Emeritus.”

    They should wait until they have achieved Codgerdom, however. And thanks for your kind words, fellas. After all that, though, I’m going to stay with RetiredSciGuy. Academia is stuffy enough; the language of learning needs to be simplified. As does the language of science. We should always state ideas in terms understood by all, not just the specialists in a field. In medieval times obfuscation was the goal. That should not be the case today. We want everyone to understand the workings of the universe.

  25. retiredsciguy says: “They should wait until they have achieved Codgerdom, however [before using Emeritus].”

    Yes, that’s customary, but one might ease himself into the title before achieving codgerdom. There is that peculiar decade of life just prior to codgerdom when a man becomes a “coot” — usually (but redundantly) referred to as an “old coot.” That phase of life is a man’s cootage. (I think I invented that term, but every time I make such a claim, someone comes along to claim priority.)

  26. >” In medieval times obfuscation was the goal.”

    Really? Cool! I guess I missed my era. Thanks for the info, your Codgerliness.