As it’s Valentine’s day, I’m not going to blog about it. You had my say before, two blogs worth, and I believe if I write any more on the subject I might just cross the line and end up in a fist fight with the pope under the vatican. (likes for assassin’s creed II reference?)
This blog could really go either way, a mish mash of ideas, not quite clearly cohesive, or maybe they will be once they’re down in blog form, who knows.
But really, I will mention a little about valentine’s day; because my heart goes out to all the single people out there, having generally bog standard to awful days. Cheer up you miserable bastards.
As my good friend George Gadd wrote this very day: “HAPPY SINGLES AWARENESS DAY. SO GLAD I GOT YOU EGG!”
So poetic :’)
Anyhoo, onto a different topic, this has a very tenuous connection as it’s going over from a saint’s feast day to creationism; both vaguely religious, one being a lot more extreme than the other but heigh ho.
According to Michael Blanford on the Swift blog four in ten Americans are creationists, and the majority of the rest have some sort of warped view on the beautiful concept that has evolved (hurrhurr) over the years into a truly magnificent projection of the world around us. The fact that the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is ignored in the face of The Bible isn’t entirely surprising given the fundamentalist view of the holy book; however, I certainly haven’t met many Christians who take the Bible literally, probably due to the reduced numbers of such people in this country. However, I found a very fitting summary in the comments section of that blog that really puts the argument in its rightful place, so I guess with these highlights of the internet in quotations this blog might be cohesive after all. Take it away dasmiller.
“It is fundamental to American freedom of speech that any position, no matter how nonsensical or odious, may be put forward and vigorously defended. Thus, people may freely debate whether the U.S. Government had a part in 9/11, whether global warming is real, whether the evidence supports evolution, and myriad other topics.
But we don’t “teach the controversy” on every topic.
There are certainly people who defend Adolph Hitler, yet we don’t “teach the controversy” about Hitler in public schools.
Many have claimed to have invented perpetual motion machines, yet we don’t “teach the controversy” about conservation of energy in public schools.
We “teach the controversy” only when there are two (or more!) supportable viewpoints. If there are not, then we don’t.
Would we really want to allow enough academic freedom that teachers could teach that conservation of energy is optional, if that is their belief? Or that the Holocaust didn’t happen?
And if (as I hope) the answer is ‘no’ to those examples, then why should evolution be treated differently?
For my part, I haven’t seen any supportable viewpoint opposing evolution. I’ve seen a lot of strawman arguments, ad-homs, various other fallacies, and even outright lies, but no compelling arguments supporting an opposing viewpoint. And lacking a strong opposing viewpoint, what “controversy” is there to teach?
though I know that others will see it differently . . .”
So a very tenuous connection there from two different subjects, but don’t blame me, blame Mike Adams, and his brilliantly shitty quote.
“Skeptics will be dead by 2020 from taking conventional medicine.”
Good one Mr. Ignorant, what a way to close us off.
Well that’s all from me for today, I bid you adieu.