The evolution of anti-evolution bills


[Read the post]


Headline is a cute bit of rhetoric - I like it.


All very well, but if evolution’s true then how come we still have ordinary bills?


Opponents of teaching evolution claim there’s a lack of evidence. This is proof that there’s not a lack of evidence but simply an unwillingness to accept the evidence.


Today’s internet, won, before lunchtime.


This kind of search-and-replace substitution was found throughout the book. Expert witness Barbara Forrest even unearthed a linguistic transitional form showing how the ID authors had slipped when doing a hasty cut-and-paste in the manuscripts. In trying to replace the term “creationists” at one point, they failed to select the whole word before pasting in the new term “design proponent,” resulting in the hybrid "cdesign proponentists."



Minor correction: Australian National University != National University of Australia



American Conservatives seem to think of science as a religion - if you aren’t a follower, then you can safely ignore it with zero consequence.

Displaying powerful cognitive dissonance they trust science enough to drive cars, shoot guns, and go to hospitals for advanced medicine.

When the same science that generously allows them to have Christian Facebook groups gets uppity and tells them they aren’t magic angels visiting the Earth for a free buffet, they declare war


They can tell which evidence is holy, and ignore everything else.


I believe you have saved me some reading. I appreciate the service.


I have my uses!


So: the actual article is behind a paywall and the screencap provided is so low-res as to cause eye strain.

My annoyance is evolving into anger.


There’s a slightly biggerized version in the ARS link, not sure if the original is any better.

But yeah, paywalls are evil and horrible and made of asshole


The Supplementary materials, particularly figure S10 might be of interest

closed #16

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.