Common Sense Is Senseless

Adam Ozimek cuts through the opaque obviousness others apparently fail to see. That’s not snark.

On the subject of evolution, it’s become clear mainstream belief is an uncomfortable position for scientists and teachers. From the journal Science:

“Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.”

Adam closes the gap: “It is not extremists who are occupying the stage; any individual expressing doubt or rejection of evolution is within the mainstream.”

I think the problem is no different than with American Christians being behind atheists and agnostics, Mormons and Jews concerning religious knowledge. Clergy, pastors and religious mentors are likely to blame for much of that, although this is merely conjecture from a post-Catholic school agnostic. Scientists have failed, miserably, to advertise their wealth of knowledge and facts in a easy to swallow story for the public. The story of creation is much more appealing; the facts of the faith — whether it’s religious or scientific — aren’t heard, they’re spoken but not understood. Ask an evolution denier and you’ll quickly realize they don’t know as much as you expected about what they strongly believe is fact or fiction. Evolution deniers will repeat facts of faith and chastity while screwing a chick that just evolved from a monkey. They won’t realize how ridiculous they seem.

Clergy and science have failed. What you have left is the mainstream –the ignorant mass. No one said common sense has to make sense. There are no stories about evolutionary facts, only creation. Maybe they should hire Don Draper for the job. That’s about what it’ll take.

6a00bf76c6db6b954a00fa969dbfc00003-500pi

Advertisements

One thought on “Common Sense Is Senseless

  1. While I believe in evolution (common descent, variation and selection etc.) since 2000 there’s been increasing evidence of problems with the NeoDarwinian synthesis. The origin of chirality hasn’t been addressed yet. Chiral clays aren’t an answer as they’re biotic in origin. Running electricity through a solution of small molecules doesn’t address this issue, either. HSP induced mutations and epigenetics hint at a partial re-emergence of Lamarckism. There’s simply too much information in the genetic code for total randomness to be the source of observed variation. And ‘conserved’ and ‘hypervariable’ regions in viruses suggest, again, that variation is not random throughout the genome.

    Evolution may be solid theory. But the NeoDarwinian synthesis has taken some serious hits. If scientists had spent less energy circling the political wagons and more energy acknowledging weaknesses, the theory might be stronger at this point.

    Or, as one friend noted; If Sagan was willing to point to the existence of “Junk” DNA as a refutation of intelligent design, shouldn’t it logically follow, if our standards for evidence are consistent, that finding Junk DNA actually has a purpose is a partial validation of intelligent design? Intelligence doesn’t have to come from any miraculous source. It could come from the genome itself, at least in some cases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: