Is the whole world degenerating — or is it only the world of journalism? Today we found another column in a newspaper that we’re going to treat as if it were just a letter-to-the-editor written by the usual maniac in a shack.
You can read this in the Guardian, published in London. It has one of the largest circulations of all British newspapers, and this is what they offer to their readers: Is Evolution Real? The author is Olajide Jatto, presumably a professional journalist, whose work has appeared in the Guardian before.
[Major correction: The column appears in something called the Las Vegas Guardian Express. Your Curmudgeon regrets the error.]
We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. It begins like this:
By far, one of the biggest debates that exist on the planet at the moment is whether evolution is real. Evolution can be defined as the metamorphosis of a biological being over a time range. Evolution leads to diversity of beings.
That’s rather bad. Any of our regular readers could improve on it. But let’s not get bogged down over a journalist’s shabby definition. Stay with us:
The origin of man looks like one of those questions that won’t stop being brought into discourse. The design of the human body looks like a perfect work of art and there has always been a fascination as to where it came from. A fascination of the genesis of it all. Where it all began from. How we all got here.
Aaaargh!! How can a British newspaper publish a column that includes a phrase like “questions that won’t stop being brought into discourse” — and then expect to be taken seriously? Maybe everyone in England talks like that and looks “like a perfect work of art.” Or maybe it only seems so to Jatto the journalist. Anyway, let’s read on:
Charles Darwin, in 1859, released what is generally now referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s main argument is that there is often a struggle for survival of the fittest of any specific species over time and hence there are changes made for adaptation purposes and consequently new species over time arise from these continued variations.
Aaaargh!! This thing is bad. It’s really bad. And that’s precisely why we’re going to continue:
As stated earlier, on the other side of the coin of the valley in this debate is the camp of those who believe in creation. People who believe in a supreme being that controls the affairs of everything else and that He created everything else as well.
Huh? “The other side of the coin of the valley in this debate”? Don’t they have any editors at the Guardian? We’ll be fair here and mention that one of the paragraphs we skipped included a reference to “A seeming battle of Elah between the camp of evolutionists and that of the creationists.” Elah presumably refers to the Valley of Elah, where David fought Goliath. That’s not a very good analogy to The Controversy, so we ignored it. But now Jatto the journalist mentions a valley again, this time in the context of a two-sided coin. This may be the worst journalistic writing we’ve ever seen.
If you think this column has been so bad up to now that it’s got to get better, we don’t want to disappoint you, but … here’s more of the same:
Needless to say, they [the creationists] very much doubt whether evolution is real. They believe in creation. The biggest grouse they postulate with the evolution theory is —
Hold on there! No seventh-grade English teacher would let a student get away with that. “Postulate” does not mean “offer” or “argue.” It’s not even close. Hey — maybe there’s an explanation for this linguistic catastrophe. Perhaps, as a cost-saving expedient, the Guardian is using low-wage writers and editors from foreign countries. Yes, that might explain this column. Anyway, let’s start that last sentence again. The italics are in the original:
The biggest grouse they postulate with the evolution theory is that if everything evolved into place, shouldn’t they have also evolved out of place? How can things so dramatically change over some billion years and then not change over the next few billion years? It is a bit difficult to argue with them in that regard.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If that’s the biggest grouse they postulate, we don’t have much to worry about — at least not from the other side of the coin in that valley where this question won’t stop being brought into discourse.
Moving along, there’s a brief discussion of whether human evolution has stopped, as David Attenborough once suggested, because we now preserve our imperfect offspring, or whether it still goes on. Jatto the journalist says:
Though Attenborough makes some sense in his explanation, it is one which smells of convenience and desperation to fit in. If it was a case of man putting an end to natural selection as Darwin explains, what about wild animals? Antelopes? Lion? Even ants? Surely they have not had as much success in keeping their young alive as we have.
Yeah — why haven’t the ants done any evolving lately? That isn’t happening. You haven’t seen it, have you? Well, have you? So if evolution is said to have done so much in the past, why has it stopped? Huh? Huh???
Here’s the end of this great column by Jatto the journalist:
Whether Evolution is real or not is not a debate that will end anytime soon but one thing remains sure, the human body is a perfect machine. Probably the greatest machine to have ever been in existence, and whatever is responsible for it is on a level higher than our level of reasoning as human beings.
If we had a pet bird, we wouldn’t insult the pretty thing by using the Guardian as a bird cage liner. Even a bird’s droppings deserve better.
[Addendum: Once more, your Curmudgeon regrets his inexcusable error in attributing this thing to the Guardian in London.]
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.