A truly horrible piece, solid creationist nonsense from beginning to end, appears in the Washington Times. It’s not just another letter-to-the-editor; this is a signed column. That newspaper has a very strict policy about reprinting their precious content, so all we’ll do here is describe what awaits you when you click over there to read it. We won’t be giving you any actual excerpts, except for a phrase here and there, and a couple of alleged quotes by other people.
The headline is a question, which tips you off to the nature of what follows: Is there credible proof for Darwinian Evolution? The author, Bill Randall, has run twice for Congress, losing both times. Alas, he’s a Republican. He begins his column with a well-known quote from Richard Dawkins:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.
We have a whole post about that: Creationists: Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, or Wicked. Randall doesn’t like it. Not a bit. He knows more than Dawkins and all those smarty-pants scientists, and his column demonstrates why he thinks so. After reading it, you can reach your own conclusion.
After the Dawkins quote he starts his rebuttal by quoting something said by Alan Guth in 1984 about the origin of the universe, which is offered by Randal as an “example of what is being taught by sympathizers of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory.” We can give you his Guth quote:
The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region (i.e.: smaller than the period at the end of this sentence). It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.
We haven’t verified that quote, but it doesn’t matter. You may have noticed that it’s utterly unrelated to the theory of evolution. Randall seems not to know that. He says people are putting their faith in “interpreted facts, not actual facts,” and he moans that those who question Darwinian evolution are scorned and ridiculed.
As evidence for that, he discusses the notorious “documentary,” Expelled, staring the very brilliant and courageous Ben Stein. Randall says that while some in academia may actually believe in evolution, most haven’t really examined it. But he has, and he says that the theory has not only been debunked, it’s been exposed as a major fraud. The rest of his column presents his evidence.
What evidence? That’s a fair question. First he offers a bunch of mined quotes, many of which we’ve debunked before. It’s too much work to plow through that material yet again. Go ahead and take a look.
Then he says that the geologic column and the fossil record are a case of circular reasoning — with the age of one arbitrarily assigned merely to suit the desired age of the other. But were that true, then the discovery we described in The Lessons of Tiktaalik would have been impossible.
Then he claims that radiometric dating techniques are worthless. He says there are no transitional fossils, and his authority is that familiar and worthless mined quote from Colin Patterson, which we previously discussed here. Patterson himself has rebutted it (see this at Talk.Origins: Patterson Misquoted).
What else does Randall have for us? You guessed it — racism and eugenics. He even quotes the full title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, utterly unaware that the book doesn’t mention the evolution of humans at all. We discussed that one in Common Creationist Claims Confuted.
As is typical of such tirades, he also claims “a strong correlation between the Holocaust” and Darwinian evolution. Then he wraps it up with a recommendation that you should get a copy of Ben Stein’s “documentary.” This is really quite a column.
So, dear reader, we’ll end this where Randall began — with Dawkins’s dictum: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Which of those adjectives — if any — describes Mr. Randall is up to you.
And what do you know? We posted about Randall’s column without violating the property rights of the Washington Times. They paid for the column; they can keep it.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
So what really was his purpose in writing this absurd column and the Washington Post’s reason for printing it? Doesn’t make any sense, or is the Post that anti-science that it panders to people like Randall and the Republican anti-science group?
Oh goodness. This bit reads like a Wednesday night sermon at a fundy baptist church.
“Then he says that the geologic column and the fossil record are a case of circular reasoning — with the age of one arbitrarily assigned merely to suit the desired age of the other.”
These buffoons such as Bill Randall should at least take a Geology 101 course at their local community college before they criticize paleontological methodology. He obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he is deliberately lying.
David, it’s from the Washington Times, not the Post. The Times routinely publishes nonsense like this, and is thus a target-rich environment for the Curmudgeon.
I just took a brief look at the responses. I stopped when I came across one which was insisting that someone provide him with proof that one species turned into another. “No new species have been produced” is one of the 9 arguments that Answers in Genesis says should never be used.
Oops, sorry Post.
This pathetic excuse for a human could have been elected to congress?!?!?
Wait, anevilmeme, there’s worse. Paul Broun actually has been elected to Congress, and “serves” on the Committee for Science and Technology. And he’s just one example.
The Washington Times started as a conservative newspaper back during the final years of the Cold War. They did a lot of fairly good reporting on what the Soviets were up to. It was refreshing having something to balance the Post. After the Cold War ended, the Times devolved into what you see today. It became a borderline paper that soon crossed the border. I’m sorry to say that when the Repubs went off the rails, the Times was shoving coal into the engine.
As for this particular post, SC called it. Nothing new here. Same old same old.
Heh:
I encourage everyone to insist on facts and empirical information; challenge interpreted facts.
… says the guy spouting quote mines that he doubtless got from other people and never checked out for himself.
Bill Randall is the same guy that speculated during his 2010 primary that BP and the Government conspired to blow the Deep Horizons well. (I think he suggested that they just wanted it to leak, but it got out of hand.) Despite that, he won his primary by a large margin. Fortunately he was defeated in the general election.
Organized creatardism has been moving toward affecting the political scene for quite a while. The most obvious, and the one drawing the most response, has been the education text book issue, but creeping ignorance is the festering Santorum on the butt of the Republican party keeping them from becoming the objective economic stalwart many want them to become.
Tundra Boy says: “creeping ignorance is the festering Santorum on the butt of the Republican party keeping them from becoming the objective economic stalwart many want them to become.”
Funny, but I don’t remember Margaret Thatcher making speeches about creationism.
SC, in your para that begins with “What else does Randall…,” don’t you mean “unaware” rather than “aware”?
You know, when I read this last night, I thought it was referring to the Post also. Is the Times still owned by the Moonies?
The creationist comments over there are the typical regurgitations of a fearful, cornered, pack animal expecting to have its brain eaten.
Bob Carroll asks:
Yup. Good catch. All fixed now. Thank you.
Curmy, we’re talking US Repubs. Last time I looked Thatcher was a Brit. I’m talking about all the Brouns, Akins, and the other transvaginal probe loving, anti-LGBT, social conservative ‘small gov’t is good except when we want to control you’ Republicans.
Tundra Boy says: “Curmy, we’re talking US Repubs. Last time I looked Thatcher was a Brit. I’m talking about all the Brouns, Akins …”
I know, and their existence is a constant embarrassment. It’s so bad that even an igloo-dwelling blubber-eating Canadian can feel smug about it, and can insult us without fear of contradiction.
the festering Santorum on the butt of the Republican party
That is an incorrect and offensive use of the word Santorum, which according to Wiktionary should only be used to mean “A frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter as an occasional byproduct of anal sex.”
I suggest we visit Shallit’s blog, where he has a good take-down of the Randall letter. Shallit shows that the G. G. Simpson quote is fake, of course.
“Funny, but I don’t remember Margaret Thatcher making speeches about creationism.”
And I don’t remember her being a member of the Republican Party.
Even if one can’t stand reading the Washington Times article, it’s worth visiting the page for the comments section. There’s comedy gold in them thar comments.
The bottom-most comment at the Washington Times, as of now, is a detailed debunking of Randall.
Yes the Washington Times is still owned by the Moonies. However the Moonies have dramatically cut back their subsidy of the paper. making the actual paper quite thin and the web version just barely a major metropolitan paper. It is embarrassing to read this paper if you have conservative (as in Goldwater/Buckley/Will) leanings.