Sunday, January 15, 2006

Dear Manitoban: Why do you soil your pages with this?

It's hard to believe that some people actually make it to university when they're this stupid. Suddenly, I'm really embarrassed for my alma mater.

: I will, if you insist, explain in detail why that article is a piece of crap, but here's just one example (emphasis added):

The evidence against this young-Earth creationism comes from both astronomy and geology. Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered early in the 20th century that the galaxies were flying apart, and by extrapolating backward, astronomers have calculated that our universe is at least 15 billion years old. On Earth, measurements of radioactive decay in rocks have set the age of the Earth to be over four billion years old.

Explaining this to students would illustrate the different ways in which theologians and scientists arrive at conclusions, and give students ammunition to use against creationists. However, the major stumbling block to including young-Earth creationism [YEC] in the curriculum is that presentation of the theory may be construed as promoting one particular religious viewpoint.

No, the major stumbling block to including young-earth creationism in any curriculum is because, scientifically, it's complete fucking garbage! I mean, what the hell? You don't need to reject YEC based on its religious implications. You can reject it simply because it's based on horrendously crappy, dishonest science.

I've followed creationism for years and I can say, with little fear of contradiction, that every piece of evidence that's ever been presented to support a young earth is rubbish. Go on, pick one -- allegedly unreliable radiometric dating techniques, helium in the earth's atmosphere, fossil forests ... you name it, I've heard it. And every single one of those arguments wretchedly dishonest. And yet we have Mr. Carter suggesting that a major stumbling block is its religious implications.

Advice to Mr. Carter: put down those creationist tracts you've been reading, and learn some science so you don't sound like such a moron. And, just for my sake, stop cheapening my degree.


CC said...

Dear Anon:

I read it. It's not "interesting," it's total rubbish. You might consider finding an intellectual role model who's not a complete idiot, you know.


CC said...

You're joking, right? Are we both talking about the article by one "Phresh Phred"?

Like I said, it's junk. Move on.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see some one else read that piss-poor excuse for an article, from the Manitoban. Worst of it is that I am a U of M Biology student and had to witness such crap being read by the masses for a full week. I have no problem if the creationists want to come up with a theory to challenge evolution, but it better be a hell of a lot better than: 'POOF!..God did it" Hence, I only fear that scientific ignorance on the part of the author is the most dangerous aspect of that article.