The Flat Earth Brigade Strikes Again

10:08 am EST August 5th, 2005 | Politics | 13 Comments

I keep trying to tell myself that the right simply has different ideas on how to go about things. It’s simply a difference of opinion, right?

No. No. No.

These are amazingly backwards looking people who reject even the simplest tenets of science in favor of mythological constructs like “intelligent design”.

The Salt Lake Tribune suggests that we apply the same strict academic structure to other areas of study in our schools.

[I]n civics class, why limit students to an understanding of representative democracy, checks and balances and the rule of law? What about equal time for fascism? It’s clearly a less complicated, more efficient system of government, one that dispenses with such bothersome notions as elections, free speech and minority rights.

Or whatever happened to good old monarchy? It provides better costumes, pageantry and music, and helps everyone remember to keep their place.

History? Make sure all those open-minded students hear that we never landed on the moon, President Kennedy was killed by the CIA and the Nazis couldn’t possibly have killed 6 million Jews.

They believe in a flat earth, and they’re pushing us over the edge.

No Related Post

« It’s Called Local Politics
Who, Who Will Tell The Media? »

13 Responses to “The Flat Earth Brigade Strikes Again”

BinkyBoy says:

August 5, 2005 at 11:08 am

Civics classes arn’t teaching the various forms of government and mass population control? History is important, or we’re doomed to repeat it and generate lots of mini-Duggers.
scratch says:

August 5, 2005 at 11:08 am

I keep trying to tell myself that the right simply has different ideas on how to go about things. It s simply a difference of opinion, right?

As near as I can tell, what you’ve actually been telling yourself is that people with different political beliefs than you are liars and cheaters who are either greedy or stupid or some combination of the two.
Jadegold says:

August 5, 2005 at 12:08 pm

The Op/ed’s heart is in the right place but it makes at least one dubious analogy. Comparative political philosophies ought to be taught in civics classes. There is a great benefit for students to learn the characteristics, benefits, shortcomings and problems of democracy, fascism, socialism, theocracy, communism, etc.

OTOH, teaching ID or creationism is not science. t has no basis or foundation in science and to pretend otherwise simply dumbs down students.
BinkyBoy says:

August 5, 2005 at 4:08 pm

I’ve been wondering if there is a place in public schools where ID could be taught. Magic has no basis in science, yet many history classes will talk about the witch trials.

Maybe one day our history classes can look back at the folly of the Creationists and how they were beaten back with a large, dirty stick.
dude says:

August 5, 2005 at 5:08 pm

Krgman has a great peice on this today called “Design for Confusion”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html

my favorite line from the column is “Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim – that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves – has never been backed by evidence.” BTW, this guy is no slouch. He’s one of the leading economics academics in the world, so this isn’t just fluff about supply-side rhetoric.
Jadegold says:

August 5, 2005 at 7:08 pm

Allowing ID to be taught in science classes would be a Creationist s worst nightmare. If you let science teachers tell the truth about ID, the wingnuts would howl

There are a number of problems with this. First, by teaching ID in a science class, you’d be providing ID a credibility it doesn’t have. You’d be at least suggesting ID is on a par with evolutionary science. Second, you’d be permitting the very nature of what science is to be debased; science is about observational and experimental evidence subjected to academic rigor. ID is about faith, mystery and superstition.
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 5, 2005 at 7:08 pm

Allowing ID to be taught in science classes would be a Creationist’s worst nightmare. If you let science teachers tell the truth about ID, the wingnuts would howl.
Quaker in a Basement says:

August 6, 2005 at 12:08 am

Second, you d be permitting the very nature of what science is to be debased; science is about observational and experimental evidence subjected to academic rigor. ID is about faith, mystery and superstition.

My point exactly. That’s what a scientist should teach.
Mike says:

August 6, 2005 at 1:08 am

In my experience, far too many scientists (particularly biologists) worship evolution and scientific method much more fervently than even devout Christians worship God. “Scientific rigor” becomes secondary to perpetuating their beloved theories.

But when asked to explain the hard parts, the things that cosmology and biology don’t have answers for, they engage in elaborate handwaving and prattle on about the need for better theories. Getting devout evolutionists to admit that their theory is incomplete is more difficult than getting Michael Jackson to admit that he needs psychiatric help.

Unfortunately, all that biology can currently postulate is that our present world is simply the result of a one-in-a-trillion combination of one-in-a-trillion chances. For most people, including myself, that simply isn’t good enough.

People are turned off by the haughtiness with which evolutionists dispense their “intellectual superiority.” Thank you Oliver, for likening proponents of ID to “flat earthers,” thus proving this point. It’s true that there are a tiny few out there who are still looking for human and dinosaur footprints together. But since they are too far out to be a danger to science or to anyone else, I believe that we should just leave them alone.

If evolutionists would simply admit that there is a lot that they don’t know, and acknowledge the fact that mortal humans will probably never have a complete understanding of the cosmos — in other words, admit that scientific theories are just models constructed by humans and therefore subject to our intellectual shortcomings — then there would be much less contention over the teaching of scientific understandings of creation and human origins.

(PS – I have a B. S. in physics and spent the better part of a year struggling to grasp general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in an advanced study course that I should have been wise enough not to take. I have utmost respect for cosmology and elementary particle physics, and it is my belief that most working in those fields seem to have a good understanding of how little we truly “know.”)
johnnyprogressive says:

August 6, 2005 at 5:08 am

Mike, just because evolution can’t explain “all the hard parts” does that mean that is isnt a viable theory? Or at that, its comparable in credibility to intelligent design? Intelligent design isn’t really based on anything other than “something intelligent made all of this because its too complex.” So that suits you as the best explanation? Evolution at least has plenty of evidence to support its existence. Intelligent design merely depends on someone’s inability to grasp that we came from monkeys. Let’s pretend were at a murder scene, and there’s no murder weapon but we can see the victim has a massive contusion on their temple. Dectective A says, clearly this person was beaten with a blunt object. Detective B says, well I beleive he was smitten by God. Detective A responds, “But its clear someone came here and assaulted this person until death.” But Detective B counters with a damning reality- where is the murder weapon to confirm his belief? HIS THEORY IS INCOMPLETE! What will the police do- throw up their hands and agree both are completely reasonable theories that deserve to be considered? Its not so much that evolution can explain everything, but it is the best theory we have, and makes the most sense based on what has been found, (ie human skulls that become increasingly blunt the farther back the fossils date). As far as those few people that beleive the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaur and man co-existed… they aren’t as marginalized as you think. There is the Museum of Earth History and the Creation Museum, two fully functioning museums trying to demonstrate that the biblical view of history in Genesis is exactly what happened. While theyre free to open these museums, its important that this extremely backwards and downright false version of the planets history is not accepted as mainstream, lest we want to go back in time as far as what we do know and reverse the position that the Earth revolves around the sun. (Hey whaddya know, thats another theory the church said was wrong!) Finally, we must remember that this is about what should be taught in science classes. Intelligent design is fine for a philsophy or theology class, but leave science to the scientists, and the scientific process, and scientific rigor.
Jadegold says:

August 6, 2005 at 11:08 am

Mike and JohnnyP: You’re both a bit confused. I think the confusion in this case is what “theory” means WRT science. A scientific theory isn’t a best guess, hypothesis, or some dreamt up scheme. At this point, I’ll let a surgical oncologist explain what is meant by scientific theory:

You must understand that, to scientists, the word “theory” has a much more specific meaning. To scientists, the word “theory” means a supposition or statement of ideas intended to explain a natural phenomenon (such as the “theory of evolution”). But it is more than that. To scientists, the word “theory” implies that the supposition or statement of ideas at present best explains the available data, has utility as a conceptual principle, and makes predictions regarding the behavior of natural phenomenon. To be recognized as a “theory,” such a statement of ideas must be supported by an enormous quantity of data, so much so that scientists at present cannot think of a better set of suppositions that explains the data and makes predictions of natural behavior. So it is with the Theory of Relativity, and so it is with the Theory of Evolution. No other set of ideas comes close to explaining the wealth of fossil, observational, experimental, and molecular biological evidence regarding how species adapt and evolve and how species come to be. Creationism, regardless of whether it’s the “intelligent design” or Biblical “young earth” variety does not come close and even contradicts much of the known evidence. That is why scientists do not consider creationism to be a theory. Also, to be useful to scientists, theories must be falsifiable. That means there must be evidence that, if found, would prove the theory incorrect. Creationism fails as a theory in that respect as well, because there is no way any scientist could ever prove that there is no God. That is one reason why scientists consider creationism to be religion or philosophy and not science, and thus not properly part of the teaching of biology. The problem with creationism, as far as scientists go, is that the explanation for unanswered questions becomes, in essence, “God did it.” That answer may be fine as a matter of faith, but it does not help science progress.

Because it is a theory, does that mean that the theory of evolution is set in stone? Of course not! Scientific theories are always subject to revision as new evidence is discovered and new experiments yield results that the old theory does not explain. However, such changes must always continue to explain the wealth of old data and old experiments that have been done, which means new theories almost always encompass the old theory somehow. One example is the Theory of Relativity. Einstein didn’t prove Newton wrong. He simply showed that Newton’s Laws of Motion described the special case of bodies traveling at velocities that are very small fractions of the speed of light. He also showed that his theory described the motion of such bodies more accurately when velocities approached the speed of light. Given that Newton had no way to measure the motion of bodies traveling that fast, his Laws were the best that could be derived at his time. If any new theory of evolution rises to replace the present one, something similar will almost certainly happen, and the new theory will not invalidate the old theory. Rather, it will likely show that the present theory is incomplete.

Stephen Jay Gould also explained evolution as theory and fact:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
frameone says:

August 6, 2005 at 2:08 pm

Mike –

You should know better then. Scientists do no “worship” evolution. When you cast science or evolution as a “golden calf” you’re casting the debate in terms that do not apply. Science is not a “golden calf.” Let go your fear and paranoia and embrace your faith. Religion has and will survive the teaching of evolution in the public schools.

You object to Oliver’s use of the term “flat earther” but what could be more appropriate? Look at history. Today, it is not “haughtiness” to say that the earth revolves around the sun. This is a fact. No question. But when Copernicus put forth his “theory” that this was the case in 1543 it caused something of a stir becuase is conflicted with certain biblical passages that placed man and the earth at the center of the universe. It wasn’t until Galileo perfected the telescope in 1609 that Copernicus’ “theory” could be proven correct. And we all know, or should know, what happened to him. (“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!” Or, well, the Inquisition in general as the case may be.) Note first of all the lag between theory and final proof. Note also that it has been almost 400 years since this final proof and religion is still with us, neither undone nor all that shaken. No doubt, religion has and will surrvive the teaching of evolution in the schools.
QandO says:

August 7, 2005 at 12:08 pm

Unintelligent Design

As much as I dislike the Creationism/Intelligent Design psuedoscience, I dislike ignorant partisan hackery even more. So I’m not going to let this pass…