Pies4shaw wrote:I am looking forward to my son learning about rust in Chemistry next year. Hopefully, equal time will be given to the phlogiston theory there. Oxygen is against my religious beliefs and I am offended by the concept.
Is there no end to the tripe up with which we have to put in the name of "tolerance" of the superstitions of the semi-literate? What happened to the most important human right of all - the right to call an idiot an idiot and dismiss their nonsense as, well, nonsense?
^ This is posting of the highest quality.
It might be helpful to those reading this - or at least those who do not have an active brain dysfunction at present -
to be reminded of one of the lunatic nature-deniers minor tactics. This is to always (or at least often) talk about "Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" or "Darwin's theory".
This is a clever little tactic as it reduces the matter to a simple question of one book ("The Bible") versus another book ("The Origin of Species"). It is an excellent example of the quite brilliantly devious way the religious nutters advance their cause. It works like this:
First, it reduces human knowledge about and understanding of evolution to one single very old book. It pretends that this book - which is getting on towards 200 years old now - is both canonical and comprehensive, when it is neither. Using Darwin's work as a proxy for the whole of modern biology is equivalent to using Karl Marx's work as a proxy for the whole of modern economics. Both were brilliant men, both made great advances, both were justly famous, both were often misunderstood, both still have interesting and relevant contributions to make today if you read them properly (i.e., as old, historically situated commentators with remarkable insights
given the very limited knowledge at that time); neither comes anywhere near describing the things we know today about their fields.
Second, it misleads the reader as to the origin of human knowledge about evolutionary processes. Darwin was not the first to explore this area, nor was his contribution unique - others were working in the same field at the same time and arriving at similar conclusions. Darwin was a very bright cookie, make no mistake about that, but if he had never lived, neither human history nor the history of science would be very different. Many early scientists were learning new things about the natural world at that time and understanding was increasing at a great rate. Darwin wrote up his study of evolution at the exactly the same time as Wallace, but if neither had done so, there were plenty of others not quite so quick on the uptake who were working away along similar lines and would have succeeded before too much longer. Really, the main thing that is significant about Darwin himself is that the happened to be a figure from an establishment background, which Wallace wasn't. For this reason, Darwin became famous and Wallace is almost forgotten.
Summary:
the loony deniers always pretend that the whole of evolutionary knowledge is contained in one old book because that makes it easy to compare to their weirdo beliefs which
are contained in one old book.
