Thursday, December 15, 2005
Eagle Forum: Science is stoopud
Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum has posited the most novel argument yet in defense of creationism against evolution:
Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.This seems relatively simplistic logic that can easily be debunked with a simple glance at the dictionary. Merriam Websters Online gives the first word in the definition of person as "Human". Human in turn directs us to humans...(of or relating to humans, consisting of humans) and VOILA! Humans is defined: "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)" Looking at the entry of "man" leads to the same definition (a bipedal primate mammal) without having to trace back to human. Holy cow... according to Merriam Websters online, using the logic posited by the Eagle Forum, the Schlaflyites have just launched a broadside at the constitution! **snark**
Actually they have not done so, any more so than those supporting science over dogma have in turn. The Schlafly rag is correct to note that the constitution was written by and for persons, but their logic falls apart after that assertion. For instance, had the constitution been written by and for say... super intelligent eagles, (obviously more intelligent than their namesake forum members) then it would pertain to eagles. Eagles, like persons, are animals but that does not mean the document does not pertain to them. There is no reason that humans, being animals by definition, can not have rights defined in the constitution.
Who is the Eagle forum to be weighing in on science anyway? They have just proven what scientific dunderheads they are by claiming that humans are not animals! And we are to take their opinion on the issues regarding science seriously after this? I mean if I proclaimed that the earth is flat and in the next breath declared that my notions should gain a hearing in science classes on geography, I'd be laughed out of the principals office. The phrase "if man is an animal" in the Eagle Forum argument is actually one of the most un-scientific arguments that can possibly be made to forward a (non) scientific cause.
What does Phyllis have against animals anyway?!? Does she think humans are supernatural and magical? Odd how we share so many traits with mammals if humans are so freaking special is it not? I say it loud and proud. I am proud of my animal heritage. Primates RULE! Why is Ms. Schlafly ashamed of who she is anyway? And this particular animal is very vocal in his support of the constitution. Which document, if anything, Ms. Schlafly and her gang are continuously attempting to undermine by having their dogma taught as science in public schools. If teaching creationism in science class does not establish religion, it is hard to see how you can define any teaching as not being constitutional.
So with of this sort of logical fallacy, we are to conclude that so called intelligent design should be taught in science class? This if anything proves the absolute dearth of supportive evidence to back their case. I feel comfortable giving you this assurance. The argument given by the Eagle Forum would not survive either scientific analysis, or a second grade debate society.
[Hat tip to Crooks and Liars for the heads up on this story]
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]