<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Et Tu, NRO?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>One reason I abandoned <em>The American Spectator</em> was the way they took up the cudgel for &#8220;Intelligent Design&#8221;. For years now I&#8217;ve been reading and enjoying <em>NRO</em>, especially <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/" target="_blank">The Corner</a>.</p>
<p>Now NRO has allowed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._West" target="_blank">John G. West</a> to spew his <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjNjYTNjMTVkNmVhMmYxN2JkMWZhMzYzMGNjNzY4ZDE=" target="_blank">dishonest propaganda</a> on its site. Not everybody there is fooled. At least John Derbyshire <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGI0ZmZlMDVlMDM0MzVhNTcwNzA3MmYwYjY2NGM0Y2Q=" target="_blank">calls it like it is</a>.</p>
<p>West&#8217;s screed is a fine example of squid&#8217;s ink: Ad hominem references to a non-existent &#8220;science thought police&#8221;, and a torturous abuse of the term &#8220;critical thinking&#8221;.</p>
<p>His attempts to link evolution in particular and science in general to eugenics are insulting, dishonest, and downright heinous. It&#8217;s an ad hominem attack West favors, but it&#8217;s a bald-faced lie.</p>
<p>He claims that science is being close-minded in its defense of evolution, and that critics of evolution are &#8220;silenced&#8221;. What a lie. If he, or any of the other moral midgets at the &#8220;Discovery&#8221; Institute have any science to offer, let them offer it. Science will listen to anybody with a falsifiable, repeatable experiment. To date the &#8220;Discovery&#8221; Institute has done exactly <em>zero</em> science. Zip. Nada.</p>
<p>If he&#8217;s correct that students should hear &#8220;Intelligent&#8221; Design taught as an alternative to evolution, then he must also insist that students hear the &#8220;Stork Theory&#8221; as an alternative to sexual reproduction, and the &#8220;Geocentric Model&#8221; as an alternative to planetary mechanics.</p>
<p>Evolution is the <em>only scientific theory</em> <em>that exists</em> for speciation. There are no other theories. If West or any of his cronies can come up with one, they&#8217;ll end up as heroes of science. Until they can, though, the trojan horse of &#8220;Intelligent&#8221; Design must be treated as the fraud that it is. The fact remains that <em>all of modern biology</em> depends on evolution.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m already on record as seeing Jindal as a nutcase for signing this stupid bill. I&#8217;m deeply disappointed that my favorite magazine gave this vile propagandist space to spew his bile. I hope they tighten up their standards.</p>
<p>The real meat of his piece is his scurrilous charge that accepting a scientific &#8220;facts&#8221; (his scare quotes) is a threat to religion. Well, if your religion can&#8217;t withstand facts then maybe it&#8217;s time to get a new religion. But this is not supposed to be a religious argument; it&#8217;s a scientific one. It&#8217;s West and his ilk who are attempting to inject a narrow religious view into public education masquerading as science. And the kids of Louisiana are the victims.</p>
<p><strong>Update</strong>:</p>
<p>Derb <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGEyN2UyZDY5YzkyNTkzYTJmOWQxNGUxYTQyM2VjN2E=" target="_blank">quotes P.Z. Meyers</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I don&#8217;t think the religious are necessarily stupid, and I most definitely do not believe they are born stupid. I do believe they are saddled with a set of foolish misconceptions that can throttle their intellectual development and send them careering off into genuinely weird sets of beliefs, but this doesn&#8217;t make them stupid. I also think that IQ tests are written by people who promote an implicitly scientific perspective (which is a good thing!), and it&#8217;s therefore not surprising that a group in which a significant fraction of its membership actively reject science will do poorly on such tests.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is a point worth making. Many atheists and, no doubt, many agnostics (where I stand on the difference is <a href="https://buttle.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/neural-buddhism/" target="_blank">here</a>) make the grave error of treating the religious as stupid. I know of some very <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Robinson_%28speechwriter%29" target="_blank">religious people</a> who, I&#8217;m confident, are <a href="http://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers-Son-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0061374733/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1215710051&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">more intelligent</a> than I. Meyers has it just right. So let me clarify: I&#8217;m not claiming that West, Behe, and the rest of the ID mongers at the DI are stupid (though they may well be). I&#8217;m claiming that they are demonstrably dishonest &#8211; which has its own ironic implications given the tenets of their professed religion.</p>
]]></html></oembed>