Baptist preacher and blogger Internet Monk ranted about the same thing. In a later blog posting (which I can’t find now that I want to cite it), he described YEC attitudes as part of a more generic “Get on our bus or get run over.”

Y’all need to understand (as Steven J. Gould took great pains to clarify), that evolution is not the inevitable progression and improvement of a species. Evolution at its base means only adaptation. Survival of the fittest only applies to an organism that is “fit” to function in a particular environmental niche. In no way does evolution science define one species, or ethnic group, as inherently superior to any other.

With this understanding, one should properly wince when watching the play/movie “Inherit the Wind”. William Jennings Bryant was a very prominent fighter for social justice issues, and denounced the “theory of evolution” partly because of the mentality of “social darwinism” that justified the oppression and exploitation of people in the lesser social strati because of their alleged inferiority. It is a shame that history remembers him as a buffoon because of the Scopes trial, and his stand against “teaching evolution”.

It is also a shame that the vestiges of the movement that opposed the imposition of the mis-interpretation of evolution theory, is now driven by the exploitation of people in the less advantaged social strata, such as rural Louisiana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Yes, there are “God of the gaps” implications to old Earth creationism (itself an umbrella term covering gap creationism, day-age creationism, Intelligent Design, et cetera). I will leave it to the old Earth creationists to sort that out, while kindly inviting them to change their views.

Many Christians (since they’re the dominant religious group that we’re dealing with) readily accepted Darwin’s theory in the decades after it was published and gained scientific acceptance. The prominent backlash against it didn’t really start until the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century with the rise of Christian Fundamentalism (which is a thoroughly modern movement).

It seems to me that sometimes Christians who accept science are attacked for being bad Christians. This concerns me, since I think all of us who support science should promote it together and put our religious beliefs–or the lack thereof–aside to do so. I don’t think it’s helpful when people like PZ Myers accuse those like Ken Miller of being wishy-washy Catholics. How would PZ feel if Miller told him that he’s not a good atheist since PZ believes in morality and atheism necessarily implies, in his (Miller’s) view, hedonism? That’d be offensive, I think. And, in any event, there’s no shortage of good Catholic theologians (see John Haught, who testified for the plaintiffs in the Dover case) who don’t have the slightest problem incorporating science into their world view, which already didn’t take the Bible literally (Augustin rejected a literal reading of Genesis about 14 centuries before Darwin).

Conservative Christians sometimes attack scientists because they change their views with new evidence. I find it unfortunately ironic that some people, while promoting science, attack Christians who change their beliefs with new evidence.

We’re all in this together, right? Yay science. Down with the Louisiana creationism law.

…if he’s really so worried about using old textbooks in science classrooms, why not propose a bill to provide funds for new textbooks?

But still, at what point did people drop “theory” from “the theory of evolution”?

Since the “but you can’t prove me WRONG!!!!” squad keeps taking the word out of its scientific meaning, and lower it to their level, covering it with nonsensical drool.

(One problem is that the word “theory” has different meanings in common parlance and in science. In common parlance, it means “a pretty good guess”, which is not what we mean by it.)

Exactly. In science, there is no greater praise than to see your theory be supported by evidence and predictions and eventually be accepted by the scientific community.

Fortunately, the client isn’t going to brook any Flintstonian nonsense…

As for the unfortunate shill who got shoved in front of the cameras to defend Louisiana’s decision… I say, bring on more of ‘em! the more idiots.. er, I mean confused people they throw in front of the cameras, the more it shows us how silly these “teachin’ what Gawd means us ta lern” movements will look.

It’s funny you post this, as in today’s paper (here in Michigan) the sponsors of the ID bill here are making the same exact talking points that Sen Nevers is making.

This just proves this is an organized attack by the creationists to get their agenda passed by the states – especially if there is going to be a radical shift in government thinking after the November elections.

I just don’t get why “It’s a theory” is still being used as an argument.

For example, she made it sound as if teachers were not teaching anything at all about origins at first – it only came clear later that her beef is that they teach the wrong side, from her point of view.

And she made heavy use of the transparent talking point that evolution is ‘outdated’, which Nevers had been doing first.

It isn’t just her academic development that’s being ruined, it’s her honesty.

Nah, creationists are just a branch that separated that never progressed In all seriousness, though, some of them are intelligent, its just that they are misguided and become cranks.

I mean, going from apes to creationists… wouldn’t that be a backwards step in terms of intelligence.