We found this at the Christian Post website, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is What Should Politicians Say about Evolution? The article has a comments feature. Here are some excerpts from the “news,” with bold font added by us:
Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, author, and a prominent proponent of intelligent design, discussed what politicians should say when questioned about evolution by an anti-creationist news media at a Faith and Law presentation on Friday, March 13, on Capitol Hill.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As you’ll see, what Meyer spoke about wasn’t what politicians should say, but rather what the Discoveroids want politicians to say. The Christian Post article is a long one. It lovingly quotes Meyer extensively, without criticism. All we can do is hit a few of the highlights:
Meyer observed that the news media considers that there are two acceptable responses from politicians to a question as to whether or not evolution is true. First, an affirmation of materialism (that matter is all that there is, and so life must have emerged from matter), and compartmentalism (religion has its proper place, but supernaturalism is excluded as a scientific explanation, and so evolution must be postulated as unguided)
“Materialism” is the Discoveroids’ word for science, which they say is identical to atheism. Despite their revulsion for science, they claim their “theory” of intelligent design is based on science, but it’s not atheistic. Of course not — it’s creation science, but for litigation purposes they don’t use that label. Let’s read on:
Meyer observed that Republicans are given a harder time, and are put on the defensive in responding to the question. The issue is complicated by the fact that the word “evolution” has no unequivocal meaning.
Ah yes, we don’t know what evolution is. But the Discoveroids do. Brace yourself for some hard-core obfuscation as the news story continues:
It can mean: 1) Change over time, 2) Common descent, and 3) Natural selection. Darwin claimed all three, and “his core idea is that nature can do the work of the Creator.” Public school students today are taught all three meanings. Nevertheless, Meyer said that natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is increasingly questioned by evolutionary biologists.
This is an important place to pause for a moment and consider that creationists always sow confusion by attempting to invent new definitions for words — see, e.g., Ken Ham’s Historical vs. Observational Science. The Discoveroids do it too. See Discovery Institute: Their Own Version of Newspeak. And Meyer is doing it again.
Contrary to Meyer’s babbling, evolution doesn’t mean three different things. The first two items he listed (change over time and common descent) are facts, readily derived from the fossil record, from morphology, and from DNA. The third thing Meyer listed (natural selection) is a major component of the theory that explains those facts. Okay, now let’s see where Meyer is trying to go with his “three different meanings” of evolution:
There is, Meyer said, “a huge disparity in the presentation of evolution.” Scientific associations insist on Neo-Darwinism, the doctrine that natural selection acts by genetic mutation, as the indisputable cause of evolution, and thus of the apparent biological order. But the rejection of criticism is unscientific, he said. Just as a computer requires new code to perform a new function, so a species requires new genetic information for an improved function, which cannot reasonably be developed by the transmission of errors in the gene sequence.
Ooooooooooooh — information! See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Here are a few more nuggets, plucked from several paragraphs:
The issue is critically important, because evolution is the creation story of materialism. “Evolution is a surrogate for world view issues,” according to Meyer.
Belief in special creation on the other hand is conducive to creativity.
Additionally, the general public is supportive of an educational policy of “teaching the controversy.” This should cause politicians, especially conservative politicians supported by a conservative base, to be less evasive and apologetic about what they believe concerning creation and evolution.
There’s much more to the article, but we’ve seen enough. This is a good time to introduce the Curmudgeon’s First Rule for Dealing with Creationists. Imagine that you’re walking down the street, minding your own business. Suddenly there’s an underground explosion. A high-pressure sewer pipe that flows from a nearby insane asylum has ruptured, sending a ghastly geyser of goo gushing from the ground, reaching 30 feet into the air.
There will be those who joyously rush forward, eager to bathe in what they see as a wondrous fountain. You can’t stop them, you can’t argue with them, and you shouldn’t try. The Curmudgeon’s Rule for such situations is: Just get out of the way, and do it quickly!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.