It is scientifically controversial because it is an historical science, and therefore very subjective.I hardly know where to begin. Maybe I'll just stop there for now.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Gack!
While flinging poo at a Kansas "Science" FAQ, Matt uncovered the following sentence which is supposed to explain something about the evolution debate:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
that might be the spit take of the day...
Yeah. I really did almost try to break it down, but there aren't three words in a row that aren't gross violations of basic logic or linguistics.
Hee. Searching around for more on this, I found this site.
Q.I've heard that there isn't really a scientific controversy, that 99+% of biologists take evolution as a given in their work. Is that true?
A.No, there really is a raging controversy, but most biologists don't know it because they only read "accepted", "peer-reviewed", or "good" scientific journals. And while it may be true that "most" biologists accept evolution, we do have several on our side, along with lots of scientists from other fields of study like engineering and computer science, and thousands of ministers, politicians, and creationist homeschool teachers.
So, you know, there's a "raging" controversy except that it doesn't include 99+% of the people who specialize in the field and by the way, the computer science guy (who is a scientist!) who fixed my laptop last week? He's totally on my side.
And what's a "creationist homeschool teacher"? Someone's mom.
Sheesh.
Anne Zook
http://annezook.com
As I hope Pooh can attest to, I don't froth at the mouth all that often (in terms of all caps), but:
THAT MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST BULLSHIT-LADEN SHORT SENTENCE I HAVE EVER READ ANYWHERE.
Kansas educators who promulgate this crap should be certified as a danger to the intellectual welfare of children.
The bile literally--and I do mean literally--rises. And we don't need anymore bile around here today, what with the kid home sick from school and all.
(And I'm an active church-goer, by the way ... )
Which of course doesn't mean I'm not going straight to hell for accepting evolution.
; )
(Thanks for your forebearance of my outburst.)
"THAT MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST BULLSHIT-LADEN SHORT SENTENCE I HAVE EVER READ ANYWHERE."
Iam, you need to reread the warranty that came with your computer, as you obviously have never even glanced at it.
My recollection of warranties that I've read is that very few of the sentences are actually short....
What distinguishes this is the sheer density of fecal disinformation: it's wrong about history, it's wrong about science, it's wrong the difference between subjectivity and controversy, and it's poorly written, to boot.
You know 'an historical' bugs me also. You pronounce the H, doggone it...
Sorry, Pooh, but that's actually something I'd have to count in their favor. For one thing, though it violates 'the rule,' it's the traditionally correct way of writing it. Some consider it pretentious, but if you look it up, most formal writing guides still say it's the way to go; it's nearly the only thing they got right.
There's a reason for breaking the rule, which I take very personally: if you leave the "n" off and say it out loud, it easily sounds like you've reversed the meaning. "A historical" isn't that far from "ahistorical"....
Post a Comment