Today’s column discusses a new twist on the old creationist-evolutionist debate.

Bill, we continue to tilt over what constitutes the definition of the word “is”, albeit ever so slightly more restrained. That type of semantic debate with a trained lawyer is dangerous. Risky. 

If Bart was not stating he advocates the teaching of creationism under any guise he did explicitly acknowledge he sees no problem with it being taught as outlined in paragraph 4, section 6, article 4, per the Texas Board of Education as he noted below:

“You know what, though? That’s OK.

IT’S OK FOR two reasons. The first is that the theory of evolution is strong enough to withstand skepticism....

What’s more, a robust discussion of the strengths and supposed weaknesses of evolution could help clear up some misconceptions...”

The reference to “That’s OK” is to the Texas Board of Education proposing to teach “both sides”.  So, yes, they are teaching creationism, but with so-called skepticism.

Bart thinks this is ok because evolution will win out. 

If this argument goes to the Supreme Court do you think my comments viz a viz Scalia will hurt my case ?

I’m just surprised to see that Bart still reads what we write.

“your latest column, where you state that creationism could be taught not as fact but as some kind of skeptical scientific questioning, if I state you correctly,”

I don’t think you do.  The current column does not state that creationism should be taught as some kind of skeptical scientific questioning.” As I read it, Bart is not advocating “teaching creationism” at all. 

The column says “it’s OK to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.” Discussing the potential weaknesses of the scientific theory of evolution is not the same as teaching creationism.

In fact, Bart states “creationism and Intelligent Design are not science.” Doesn’t seem like much of a sop to creationists.

But then again, I love Bart nearly as much as I love Scalia.  Bart is cuter and more cuddly.

Bart,

Your earlier column only agrees with what I said, that you don’t necessarily agree with creationism.

That earlier column was no sop to evangelicals. However, your latest column, where you state that creationism could be taught not as fact but as some kind of skeptical scientific questioning, if I state you correctly, that could be interpreted as a sop.

I covered myself on that issue too, by stating it was a “guess”, a “guesstimate”.

I don’t think it is a wild conspiracy theory. I see a lot of conservative talking points seeping out of the T-D editorial page. (my opinion only) Is that X-files ? I don’t believe so. NYT, eh ? (no comment)

If it isn’t a wild theory it is a not-so-wild conspiracy theory, so I see no reason to doubt your veracity based on mere guesswork and happenstance. You say it wasn’t a sop. I think that is fine.
Sorry if I offended.

Which brings us back to Larry’s point. Why the emphasis on creationism if not as thought ?  Oh, never mind. No more conspiracies.

Ed,

That’s an entertaining conspiracy theory, and thanks for the chuckle. But just so we’re clear, it’s waaaaaay too “X-Files.” I didn’t “put out” the issue to “throw a bone” to anybody. I read an interesting article in The New York Times that got me thinking. That’s all.

You don’t need to read the “fine print,” either. Here’s an excerpt from a column I did on the same subj. a couple years ago. If you think it’s also a sop to evangelicals, please see me about a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

------

CREATIONISM MIGHT DESERVE TO BE TAUGHT - IN RELIGION CLASS
By A. Barton Hinkle

Friday,December 10, 2004

Lost among November’s electoral post-mortems was one of the more dispiriting items to come across the news wires in recent months. According to Gallup, the segment of Americans who believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is “well-supported by evidence” stands at a mere 35 percent. Another 35 percent say it is not; 29 percent say they do not know enough to say one way or the other. Not long after that report came another, carried in this newspaper Sunday, that roughly 40 states face some kind of challenge to the teaching of evolution.

Such is the case just up the road in Charles County, Maryland, where a majority on the board of education supports teaching creationism alongside evolution. In the words of one board member, “I believe that if we are teaching evolution, we should have a section on creationism as well, and any other theory. Let’s motivate our kids to be creative thinkers.”

Such creativity, alas, would lead children to the conclusion that two plus two equals five and that when it rains, it does so because angels are crying.

There is, in fact, a place for creationism in the classroom - the religious-studies classroom, that is. It does not belong in the science classroom any more than astrology or exorcism does. . . .

[According to religioustolerance.org,]
The sorting of fossils is complete. Dinosaurs have never been found in the same layer as trilobites; trilobites have never been seen together with human remains; dinosaur remains have not been found with human remains. And so on for perhaps a million other combinations . . . .

One simple example may clarify this. There is a thin layer of clay containing a high concentration of iridium which was laid down between the Cretaceous and Tertiary rock layers - apparently about 65 million years ago. Because it is found in so many places around the world, it is a very useful date marker.

There are thousands of species whose fossils are only found lower in the fossil record than this layer; there are thousands of species which are only found higher. This is overwhelming proof that the rock layers, and the species they contain, were laid down over long periods of time. In order to disprove evolution, it would be necessary for creation scientists to prove that all species co-existed together, and were somehow precisely sorted into layers by species.
We are unaware of any efforts by young-Earth creation scientists working in this area.

Bill.

I think the fact that you have a BS in biology blew a fuse in somebodies self adulation box.  You’re a science lawyer. Just for grins, tell ‘em your either black or gay so I can hear their heads explode.

Please apologize before he starts crying and we all have to sit in class during play period.

Larry,

Creationism in my guesstimate is a sop put out by Bart and by the forces of conservatism, of which the T-D is a vital part, to the evangelical Christians.

He puts out this issue because this is an election year and the evangelicals, wobbling in their support, need to be tossed a bone.

If you read the fine print, it is isn’t clear that Bart supports creationism any more than anyone else.

That’s just a guess.

Bill,

You said “I love the neat little cubby-hole boxes you guys have put Roger and me into.....stereotype...”.

If that was not aimed at me, who could it possibly be aimed at ? 

You wonder why I find you irritating. It is just your last post as one great example. You accuse me of namecalling when you are the master of namecalling, a fact you conveniently forget when you mistakenly assume the mantle of the aggrieved victim.  If you can stand back and truthfully say you have never called me or others names then fine, by all means, continue to pretend to be holier than thou.

If you are being honest, you will cease and desist.

You are full of yourself. You don’t express opinions. You talk as if everything you say is incontrevertible fact and nothing but fact. 

No doubt your wife does find that charming. I don’t and I do feel sorry for her. 

And what’s with all this Bob bashing ? Sure, he’s a sqeechy lib, and we hate libs, but he does not deserve the waterboarding you two thugs dish out nearly every day.  That ain’t tough love. It’s nasty brutal and not much in the way of a debate either.

This is your “engorged morality”. Indeed. Exactly what it is and isn’t.

When you say something decent I will be the first to admit it as I have in the past. In the meantime, you are totally and completely full of it Bill.

“Question...how do we know the amphibifish is the picture are climbing OUT of the water? They could be ancestors of Larry...”

Those amphibioids you are referring to are neither headed into the water, nor are they headed toward land. They are on their way to a Yes album cover.

Seriously, we got Doug Wilder here performing every illegal act he can, while he’s disguised as our “mayor”; we as a nation are in our worst financial straits there are since the Great Depression; inmates in the city jail are droppin’ like flies from the excessive conditions…

...and Mr. Bart tosses this ol’ rag out for a topic! Talk about trying to divert people’s attention. Avoidism is what it is. Richmond is great, the United States is great. We ain’t got no problems here.

Bill,

They can’t break away from their security blanket stereotypes because if they did, HOLY CRAP...it’s be like Pat Robertson admitting Darwin might be on to something!

It’a also why they find us irritating. They’re arguing within self imposed ideological/religious limits yet, we continue to to play outside the baselines. When that happens, they reset to default sterotypes because that’s all they know.

I think creationism is silly. I think all religion is silly...and inherently evil and totalitarian...just like government and it’s army of petty priests at at any number of gov’t “churches” where we’re forced to go and pay penence.....which is why I keep trying to get bob to trash mouth islam or his liberal icons...just to see if he has the balls to apply his contempt evenly and appropraitely. He doesn’t.

Question...how do we know the amphibifish is the picture are climbing OUT of the water? They could be ancestors of Larry...in which case they’re likely saying “this place is boring...I’m going back in the water where I can pee and no one will ever know!”

Post Your Comments: