Home » Intelligent Design » Financial Times of London: If you must be wrong, why must you also be just plain stupid and out of date?

Financial Times of London: If you must be wrong, why must you also be just plain stupid and out of date?

Here’s an amazingly silly editorial from the Financial Times of London, January 16, 2009 (yes, that pink newspaper), warning against people who question Darwin worship:

Many scientists and liberal politicians regard the rising creationist tide as a side-show that they can safely ignore. They are wrong, for several reasons. Wide areas of research, from biology to cosmology, would suffer directly if it became politically difficult for governments to fund fields that depend on such a basic a part of science as evolution. The cost would be economic as well as intellectual.

But Darwin is also worth defending because attacks on evolution symbolise a wider and more varied assault on policies based on evidence rather than prejudice. Some of this assault comes from the same religious forces as creationism – think, for example, of those ranged against embryonic stem cell research. Sheer ignorance plays a role too and so do the mass media.

As a matter of fact, human embryonic stem cell research did not turn out to be as necessary as its proponents claimed, and there are lots of good reasons for questioning the ridiculous hagiography of Darwin.

Also just up at the Post-Darwinist:

Darwinism and popular culture: Newsweek columnist fronts anti-Darwinism inheritance theory

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

Canadian columnist David Warren takes on a Darwinoid, on the subject of whales

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

6 Responses to Financial Times of London: If you must be wrong, why must you also be just plain stupid and out of date?

  1. Typical. If they don’t have a good argument then they just spread fear. By simply claiming that the theory of evolution is the basis for logical thinking and the basis for all the branches of modern science, they can say that questioning Darwin will destroy the/their world.

    [off topic]Remember this campaign: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ly-no-god/ ?! It is now happening in the Netherlands too! Floris van den Berg: “we want to point out that people are free and don’t have to obey the laws of religion. Make your own decisions and don’t let you be guided by rules that originated of make belief stories.”"people who are non-religious are not lower than people who are. That is what we want to clarify.”Since when does being religious mean you can’t be free? Who ever said that religious people are better than non-religious people? Humanists…[/off topic]

  2. critiacrof wrote:

    [T]hey can say that questioning Darwin will destroy the/their world.

    “Darwinism is the most solid science there is! It’s a theory just like gravity is a theory! Overwhelming evidence! All true scientists agree that it is a fact!”

    “But what about this fossil…”

    “SHUT UP YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU CREATIONIST FUNDIE FOOL! GRAWWR YOU ARE DESTROYING SCIENCE YOU ANTI-SCIENCEY-TYPE PERSON! YOUR ONE HOUR PER WEEK IN CHURCH IS ERASING THE THIRTY HOURS PER WEEK WE TEACH IN SCHOOL! CHURCH HAS GOT TO GO!

    Floris van den Berg: “we want to point out that people are free and don’t have to obey the laws of religion. Make your own decisions and don’t let you be guided by rules that originated of make belief stories.”

    “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

    “people who are non-religious are not lower than people who are.

    The guy never heard that Christianity teaches we are ALL sinners. Granted, some Christians aren’t as humble as they need to be (including me), but we’re supposed to know that we aren’t better than nonbelievers. Even our best works are like dirty rags in His sight.

  3. Wide areas of research, from biology to cosmology, would suffer directly if it became politically difficult for governments to fund fields that depend on such a basic a part of science as evolution. The cost would be economic as well as intellectual.

    This assumes that there is no better use for taxpayer funds than evolution research. Perhaps we could derive greater economic and intellectual benefit from funding, say medical research or some are of science. Are there no other unanswered scientific questions that might merit funding more than evolution?

  4. Russ, you are of course right.

    There is a vast amount of research needed out there about human, animal, and plant health that would *improve living conditions in this world now*.

    And it hardly matters how Pleistocene man or the tyrannosaur or the Cretaceous plants lived.

    Whether or not the research vindicates some theory about those life forms’ ancient lifestyles would not be a barrier to its use.

    For example, a big question in older human health today concerns Alzheimer syndrome.

    The reality is that most animals, past and present, have never lived long enough to acquire Alzheimer syndrme – usually a condition of late (human) life.

    If someone wants to do a big paper in The Review of Evolutionary Psychology proving that tyrannosaurs and albertasaurs did not apparently suffer from Alzheimer syndrome – HOW does that help our local Alzheimer outreach nurse?

    Not in any way that either she or I can obviously see.

    It would make no difference to either of us if those creatures had never lived.

  5. Now lignin has been found in red algae, which was thought to have been only in land plants. http://tinyurl.com/awgb7o Of course this means that they have to once again radically revise long held views of plant evolution or conclude that plants miraculously evolved the ability to produce lignin twice. They toss out a lot of ten dollar words time and time again to dance around the facts in order to evade coming to the conclusion that evolution isn’t true.

  6. Why is it we so often hear that evolution is as well established as the theory of gravity or some other theory of physics, but we never ever hear a physicist say that this or that theory of physics is as well established as evolution? Hmmmm….?

Leave a Reply