Dee dee dee, I'm a moron
You know, if you gave us laptops
we could write a column for the WaPo as well.
Hell, if Sally Jenkins can, any sentient being can.
Atrios posted up this idiocy from the WaPo.
You know, they pay editors to kill bad ideas. Where were they when this crossed the copy desk?
At least Andy Sullivan is blogging.
The sports section would not seem to be a place to discuss intelligent design, the notion that nature shows signs of an intrinsic intelligence too highly organized to be solely the product of evolution. It's an odd intersection, admittedly. You might ask, what's so intelligently designed about ballplayers (or sportswriters)? Jose Canseco once let a baseball hit him in the head and bounce over the fence for a home run. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Gus Frerotte gave himself a concussion by running helmet-first into a wall in a fit of exuberance. But athletes also are explorers of the boundaries of physiology and neuroscience, and some intelligent design proponents therefore suggest they can be walking human laboratories for their theories.
First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't. ID is unfairly confused with the movement to teach creationism in public schools. The most serious ID proponents are complexity theorists, legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism (the notion that all of our qualities are the product of random mutation) is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world. Creationists are attracted to ID, and one of its founding fathers, University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, is a devout Presbyterian. But you don't have to be a creationist to think there might be something to it, or to agree with Johnson when he says, "The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and lungs and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that."
Sally, you're a fucking idiot. I'm sure the letters to the WaPo ripping this insane article will explain that. But let's start with this: First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't. ID is unfairly confused with the movement to teach creationism in public schools
No, Sally, that is exactly what it is. It is creationism with a scientific face.
But here's a hint: this is a scientitific theory without a scientist to back it up.
Are law professors the academic world's idiots? Because unless I'm confused, they don't teach biology in law school. Yet, it seems they spout out crazy shit every week. Why don't I go to a biologist for con law? I'm sure they can explain the First Amendment as well as Prof. Johnson can explain evolution, with his research trips and field studies and all. What? He's talking out of his ass?
The panda body is packed with marvels, eyes, and lungs and cells and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that either.
Here's a simple task: find a peer-reviewed article which backs up ID. Just one.
Of course, you won't, because it isn't science. It is religion.
Sally, here's a hint: you wouldn't interview Joe Gibbs about the Nats, you wouldn't talk to Freddy Adu about scoring touchdowns, so why are you talking to a law professor and former football player about evolution?
posted by Steve @ 3:19:00 PM