Nooks And Crannies

« December 2007 »


I'm not sure how old you are, or what prompted you to write a letter to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Was it your parents? A church youth group pastor? Who knows, it may even have been your own idea, borne from years of believing stupid people. But I'm glad you did, because it points out two things about creationist fuckjobs that I don't think I've managed to bring up in the past, and you know. I like to be thorough.

So what does young Spencer have to say? ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"This week in biology class we started learning about evolution. While I am open to learning about new and different things, it bothers me how we don't learn about the counterpoint: creationism. I think that as long as we are learning about one thing we should learn about the opposing theory, right? Even though I go to a public school, I wish that I could learn both sides to the story, so that I may be well informed, and base my ideas and morals off of that."

There are a number of problems with this letter, but the first one I see is the use of the word "creationism". Which is odd, because the word itself went out of vogue some time ago, possibly before Spencer was even born. Heck, since Dover, even "intelligent design" is a bit passe. It's almost as if Spencer forgot, or wasn't told, to pretend that they have to keep renaming their credo every time it gets found unconstitutional. Oops.

But that's a sideshow. The real meat of the beast lies in his last sentence. The first half of the sentence really exposes the disingenuousness of the whole thing in a big way. Spencer wishes he could learn both sides of the story. Yet it's clear from the rest of his sentence that Spencer already HAS learned about both sides of the story. He's learning about evolution from his secular humanist liberal satanist Darwinist science teacher, and somehow, somewhere, he also learned about creationism.

So really, Spencer doesn't want to learn about creationism. Spencer wants his CLASSMATES to learn about creationism. His classmates who may not have the benefit of Spencer's other sources of divine knowledge. I'm not sure how it is that a creationist didn't manage to figure out the basic logical consequences of his word choice, but there you have it. Out of the mouths of indeterminately-aged children.

And speaking of phrasings that perhaps reveal more about true intentions than creationists would prefer, we turn to the second half of that sentence, where it's revealed that the purpose of science class is to allow students to "be well informed, and base [their] ideas and morals off of that". I don't know about you, but one of the things I like about science is how completely amoral it is. I don't base my morals on science. I base whether shit will hit the ground when I let go of it on science.

But to creationists, science exists solely to service and justify their idea of morality, and any science that doesn't service and justify it has to be eradicated. And the best way to eradicate a bit of science is to make it essentially interchangeable with a pile of superstitious bullshit. We know this about them, but they rarely admit it, even by accident. So thank you, Spencer Lasley, for making it so clear to us all.