Texas: Vichy Science Is on the March

In light of recent creationist idiocy in Texas, the evolution ‘controversy’ will be in the news. Those of us who support science will need some talking points made for TV debate, not the classroom. Here are my suggestions:

  1. ID should always be referred to as intelligent design creationism. Not only is this accurate, but many people don’t want to be linked with creationism–creationism does have a stigma attached to it.
  2. Evolutionary biology is critical to medicine and genomics–denying evolution is like watching television and denying the existence of photons. Genomics is one of those things most people think we should be supporting, even if they don’t really know what genomics is.
  3. Intelligent design isn’t science: it proposes no testable hypotheses, and is nothing but nit picking.
  4. Intelligent design creationism basically says, “When we can’t figure it out today, we know an intelligent designer did it.” As a scientist, that’s cutting and running. It’s Vichy Science. Where would America be if the previous generations had quit thinking about a problem because it was too hard to solve?
This entry was posted in Creationism, Framing. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Texas: Vichy Science Is on the March

  1. Dano says:

    These are great ideas. We Texans need all the help we can get! We’re bracing for the worst next year…

  2. Chad says:

    I would even go as far as calling it “creationism intelligent design.” It doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as easily, but it certainly makes clear the direct progression from creationism to intelligent design.

  3. genesgalore says:

    just goes to show that those rna-dna codon guys come from the school of unintelligent design. give that tinkertoy box of codons enough time and the right environment and walla!!! one gets a viable entity. only trouble is that some of those entities are from texas and kansas, where the nature-nuture balancing act is subjected to brainwashing.

  4. Ex-drone says:

    ID does not meet the evidence-based, falsifiable, peer-reviewed criteria of Science. Lowering this standard or “teaching the controversy” to let ID into Science classrooms will also allow in other non-scientific topics, such as astrology, witchcraft, ghosts, ESP, alchemy, flat/hollow Earth, phrenology, astral projection, clairvoyance, ectoplasm, numerology, psychokinesis, precognition, telepathy, occultism, plant perception, remote viewing, auras, chupacabras, lake monsters, pyramidology, …

  5. KeithB says:

    And the best part about “IDC” is that the rank and file will think it is a good description, but the DI flacks will be livid since it exposes the religious motivation behind the curtain.

  6. Pierce R. Butler says:

    Given the fact that Chris Comer was fired for simply relaying an email about a talk to be given by a critic of ID creationism, nobody in the Texas educational system should ever be allowed to utter the “teach the controversy” slogan without immediately being called out for it.

  7. mark says:

    And don’t forget to be very polite and tolerant. Don’t call them “IDiots”–they prefer the term “cdesign proponentsists.”

  8. Vidusa says:

    In joy,
    Vidusa 🙂

Comments are closed.