Why does Matt Barber hate America?

[elfs]

As far on the wrong side of history as Thomas Kimber and Ronald Numbers, Matt Barber insists: "Legitimate marriage can no more evolve into counterfeit same-sex marriage than a protein molecule from a mud puddle can evolve into a human being."

Hey, guess what, Matt? Evolution is true, and should you ever get cancer, you may be thankful that the field of Evolutionary Oncology exists. Whenever you're hungry, express gratitude that evolutionary agriculture exists.

I've said it before: if you're opposed to evolutionary biology, the primary science of the 21st century and its primary foundation, you're opposed to the success of the United States of America on the world stage. No other country in the world teaches its children such rubbish as "intelligent design" or any of its less sophisticated sophistries. No self-respecting industrial biology laboratory would knowingly hire an Intelligent Design proponent; it would be financially runious to do so.

Hey, Matt, you know how you'll be remembered, if at all? This way: U.S. History Students of 2083 say: "It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage".

Comments

[shockwave77598.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, the Russians rejected completely the science of DNA and evolution when they were an athiest communist nation. It cost them dearly as the west was able to feed itself and cure its disease problems where the east could not. And now we have these idiots trying to hide the truth the same way the Russians did, and for the same reasons -- it makes them uncomfortable.

[tagryn]

Lysenkoism had long-reaching consequences, and not just for Soviet epidemiology. I don't think we can draw an analogy to the mainstream ID folks, though, at least from what I've read of them - by and large, they're merely asking for recognition as a possible alternative theory, not for suppression of all other positions.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

The ID folks are asking for two things, actually.

1. They are asking that their position be recognized as a matter of science, despite the complete lack of scientific evidence to support their position. It is not standard for anything to be considered a scientific process when there is no factual evidence behind it.

2. They are asking that evolution be considered a theory (actively and purposely confusing the concept of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution to convince people that evolution itself is a theory, not that the process by which evolution acts is a theory). Evolution is not a theory...it is a fact and can be observed in action right now and in the archaeological record.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

Small, inflexible minds like to think the world is as small and unchanging as they are. The thought that they might be to the universe as a single neutrino is to the Milky Way galaxy terrifies them. They are also terrified of change. It's a mental illness. A little fear of change, a little fear of insignificance, are healthy. But when they have so much of both that they must force the world to comply with their view of what it should be, then there is a problem.

[tagryn]

That's an awfully broad brush to be painting with - if having trouble adapting to change & inflexibility of mind are the measures, most elderly folk would be considered "mentally ill."