Evolution

If you read these two essays out of context, would you know which one is (ostensibly) serious and which one is satire?

I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

What I Think About Evolution

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Evolution

  1. As a Kansan, I apologize for the silliness — and this is the funniest review I’ve read all day. You should know that we’re not all religious fanatics. Even Sam is doing this because

    1) he has to pander to the (conservative) republican primary voters, who are more radical than general election voters. This happens in the U.S. for both Democrats and Republicans. The media ignores this, but blogs have a good record recently of documenting this.

    2) the media election coverage has devolved into sound bites and “horse race” coverage — this idea is examined in detail, for example, in Gore’s new book, The Assault On Reason. Sam is not a “top tier” candidate at this time (these are Guiliani, McCain, and Romney), so he needs to get exposure with things like this.

    While we’re on this topic, I’ll mention that the religious right actually only took over the Kansas school board again in 2005-2006 because the rest of us weren’t paying attention. They were voted off a few years back, but they never give up!

    In Kansas politics, there are really three groups, each about 1/3 of the population: the Democrats; the Religious fanatics; and Moderate republicans. The governor (Sebelius) has done a good job recently of forming a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.
    Meanwhile, the moderates have fought back for the school board. For example, these moderate Republicans started an organization to elect moderates to the school board, and succeeded in the last election:

    http://www.ksalliance.org/

    There is also the Kansas Citizens for Science:

    http://www.kcfs.org/

    I believe both groups will remain around for the 2008 election, and are accepting contributions.

  2. Well, just to be clear, what parts of the Brownback article do people find indefensible?

    As far as I could see, there were a few statements towards the end, specifically:

    “I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.”

    “…with certainty… [m]an was not an accident”

    “Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”

    I think all the other stuff is reasonable, or at least defensible.

  3. Brownback seemed to say in this article that, although he basically believes in evolution, he’s forced to denounce it in public because a nuanced argument is too difficult, and given the choice he’d rather come out anti-science than pro-science.

    That’s not a defensible position, to explain the denouncing of something by saying that one doesn’t really mean it.

  4. Brownback never says that he accepts speciation. That’s pretty far from accepting anything important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s