The Smug Baldy Speaks

On another blog, someone asked this about the Alabama school board :

Again, I ask, when did it get to be a good and acceptable thing in this country to be so fucking stupid?

My response:

You know, to me it’s tempting to fall into the trap of calling evolution deniers stupid. But it’ a trap, after all. I think there’s more to it than that - maybe something about finding comfort and safety in religion within a world that offers mostly violence and confusion. Certainly, the notion that magical gods and demons share our reality is nothing new. What I’m constantly in awe of is how seemingly rational people could take these ideas seriously in the 21st century. But that’s another trap, I believe. As a scientist, I reject the idea that the world is populated with magic. To a religious person, accepting this is usually an entrance requirement.

As an aside, I heard an interesting discussion this AM about the newest tactic in the “anti-evolution” crusade: Challenging the theory of Evolution on its scientific merits.

Boy, that made me laugh. The whole point of ANY real scientific theory is that it could be falsified - given the right evidence. Good theories generate testable hypotheses that, if actually tested, could lead to the rejection of the entire theory. Evolution is no different, so I find it interesting that the anti-evolution camp would consider stooping to using the scientific method to discredit a scientific theory.

Of course, rejecting a theory like evolution wouldn’t be easy - since it’s not enough to point out where the predictions it makes are wrong. You have to have to provide a viable, scientifically testable theory to replace it. And just as the case in which Quantum Theory replaced classical mechanics, whatever you come up with as the replacement for Evolution needs to account for all the predictions that can be made under evolution as well as account for it shortcomings. To my knowledge, there’s no viable replacement from the anti-evolution camp. Let’s take “Intelligent Design” for a little walk, shall we:

Scientist Q: Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?

ID Proponent A: Yes.

Scientist Q: What testable predictions or hypotheses does it make?

ID Proponent A: Umm … none. But it explains everything. [Hands begin to wave]

Scientist Q: How’ that?

ID Proponent A: Right here in the process model, in the little box labelled “Insert flashy miracle here”. [Hand waving is blindingly fast]

Scientist Q: What evidence could disprove ID?

ID Proponent A: Well, if God were an idiot, I guess that would do it. But he’s obviously not an idiot.

Scientist Q: What makes you so sure?

ID Proponent A: Ooh - look at this snowflake. How could an idiot come up with something so pretty?

Scientist Q: You want us all to drink that purple cool aid, don’t you.

ID Proponent A: Only uppity know-it-alls like you.