# Meanwhile in Kansas.. (Anti-evolution is back, thanks to the election too!) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2004, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468 "2004-11-07T05:53:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/21 "2004-11-07T23:46:25Z")
I revise my position. I say that we make a whole class dedicated to Creationism, and spend the semester covering all of the creation mythology around the world. It would be a great introduction to foreign culture. Just have to make sure the text books aren’t 90% Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![MidnightRadio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@MidnightRadio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MidnightRadio)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/22 "2004-11-07T23:58:26Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide.” > > Don’t jump all over me for asking this but…wouldn’t this be true, considering the way homosexuals are treated in our society? > > I’d sure as hell be depressed if 59 million people just said I wasn’t human. Well, I’m certainly not going to jump all over you. As a gay man, I can tell you that we _do_ have higher rates of suicide than the general population and I’m pretty sure the same is true for depression and substance abuse. What’s offensive about that particular person saying it is that people like her are the _reason_ for the problem. When gays, lesbians, and transgendered people are subjected to hate speech and discrimination—especially at a young age (and that “hate the sin, love the sinner” bullshit is just watered-down hate speech)—it leads to depression, which in turn leads to substance abuse and suicide. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/23 "2004-11-08T00:16:27Z")
> [@continuity eror](#): > > I’m sorry, but if you believe that the Earth was formed in seven literal days then you are a bonehead. It’s not elitism to believe in evolution. When I talk to someone who believes in evolution, or that the Earth is round, or that the Earth revolves around the sun, I don’t think “gee, this is one intelligent liberal-minded individual.” I don’t think anything at all. It’s only when they say something whacked-out that I start thinking they’re a bonehead. And I don’t equate non-scientific thinking with conservatism. I know plenty of conservatives that believe in the basic fundamentals of science, and there are plenty of whacked-out liberals too (Lyndon LaRouche?). Er…who was this directed at exactly? Or more to the point, who are you argueing with here? Not me…I’m the one who said that belief in evolution WASN’T some liberal elite monopoly. If this was directed at ME, then you need to re-read what I actually wrote…not what you THINK I wrote. As to politics, of COURSE its about politics. Its a hot button issue with the non-intellectual right wing, and THEY will use politics (and have used and are using) to get their agenda through. To combat that I think that whats needed is calm and competent information presented on many fronts, including those I listed in my post. Otherwise kids are going to have to wait until secondary school to get the goods on Evolution, and those that don’t go will be misinformed, like so much of our citizenry is about science. > [@edwino](#): > > I’m a scientist. I was raised Jewish. And this is no less offensive to me than wanting to devote equal time to Holocaust denial during history class. Or even sticking in a line saying that the Holocaust is an event that some people dispute. Well, I’m not a scientist…just an engineer. I agree its offensive, but if its not done then you can pretty much write off the fight IMO, because the creationist/Intellegent Design people will keep hammering away. The only way to beat it is to allow side by side comparisons so that people can judge rationally for themselves. At least they WILL be exposed to Evolution and will have SOME information to make a comparison…instead of mis-information. Like I said, I think the proponents of Evolution should concentrate on getting the message out more, and making sure that whats taught in elementary and highschool is GOOD Evolutionary science. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/24 "2004-11-08T00:17:33Z")
> [@edwino](#): > > Lysenkoism, Lamarckianism, and geocentrism are bad examples. I understand what you’re getting at here, in that the formulations of these models fit the scientific method and failed on their merits, while intelligent design doesn’t even meet that basic standard, but I think it’s premature to dismiss Lysenkoism too quickly. In fact, I think there’s a safe parallel to be drawn betwen Lysenkoism and intelligent design in the current political climate because of how both are being exploited for political purposes. Lysenkoism was a legitimate (if implausible) hypothesis up until it was discredited, which differentiates it from ID, but _after it was discredited_ the Soviet apparatchiks kept insulating it and sabotaging its competition because its view of the world was useful for justifying and advancing Communist political objectives. ID is similarly discredited (though the process was different, because it wasn’t and isn’t robust enough even to get to the prediction-vs-disproof stage) and yet it’s still propped up by political operatives for their own short-sighted power-brokering purposes. That’s one of the most appalling things about this administration’s roughshod trampling of science: that they would follow so closely a path of abject failure that looms so clearly in the world’s recent history, and that was a painfully obvious and easily avoidable mistake by our ostensible enemy, no less. It’s the old adage about those who don’t know history being doomed to repeat it; a lack of familiarity with the methods and scope of scientific discovery means our political leaders are shooting our national intellect, and in consequence our future, right in the foot. Really, it’s stuff like this that demonstrates that fundamentalists of every stripe are far more similar than different, despite the varying colors of banner under which they conduct their marches into ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/25 "2004-11-08T00:29:25Z")
Slight hijack here but with all due respect a large portion of the Democrat’s voting base either aren’t that bright themselves and probably reject the notion of evolution (if they have any notion of it all). Many minorities and blue-collar whites who vote Democratic are equally as ignorant when it comes to these sorts of issues. Witness the vote against gay marriage in Hawaii and the support amognst democrats for said bans. Now, colour me ignorant (thank you for the links) but can anyone summarize the argument for ID and their flaws? This is something I know very little about other than the fact that creationism seems juvenille. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/26 "2004-11-08T00:45:15Z")
There was this guy in England, who’s name escapes me, who put forth a truly fascinating bit of intellectual self-buggery. Boiled down, he said this: The dinosaur fossils, geological record etc. where crafted by God with the intent of permitting us to be misled. The bones, rocks, etc. were _deliberately_ created to _appear_ as if they were not created of an instant, but were, in fact, the results of millions/billions of years. A test of faith, you see. If you rejected the evidence of your common sense, you had faith. For myself, if I truly believed in the existence of such a God, I would not only refuse to worship same, but would seek out the nearest Satanist coven! There is some shit not even God can get away with! My point (and yes, I have one…) is that intelligent design is an assumption irrelevant to science, it can be an overarching presumption that isn’t dependent on science, nor does it affect science. The difference between “made that way” and “happened that way” is pure speculative metaphysics, fairy tales for the cerebrally overburdened. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/27 "2004-11-08T01:12:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There was this guy in England, who’s name escapes me, who put forth a truly fascinating bit of intellectual self-buggery. Boiled down, he said this: The dinosaur fossils, geological record etc. where crafted by God with the intent of permitting us to be misled. The bones, rocks, etc. were _deliberately_ created to _appear_ as if they were not created of an instant, but were, in fact, the results of millions/billions of years. > > A test of faith, you see. If you rejected the evidence of your common sense, you had faith. Where I grew up, this was the most common belief about fossils. This and many similar poisons were spread freely by most public school teachers. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/28 "2004-11-08T01:22:46Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There was this guy in England, who’s name escapes me, who put forth a truly fascinating bit of intellectual self-buggery. Boiled down, he said this: The dinosaur fossils, geological record etc. where crafted by God with the intent of permitting us to be misled. The bones, rocks, etc. were _deliberately_ created to _appear_ as if they were not created of an instant, but were, in fact, the results of millions/billions of years. > > A test of faith, you see. If you rejected the evidence of your common sense, you had faith. For myself, if I truly believed in the existence of such a God, I would not only refuse to worship same, but would seek out the nearest Satanist coven! There is some shit not even God can get away with! Isn’t that the theory Jack Chick tried to push with “Big Daddy”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/29 "2004-11-08T01:38:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There was this guy in England, who’s name escapes me, who put forth a truly fascinating bit of intellectual self-buggery. Boiled down, he said this: The dinosaur fossils, geological record etc. where crafted by God with the intent of permitting us to be misled. The bones, rocks, etc. were _deliberately_ created to _appear_ as if they were not created of an instant, but were, in fact, the results of millions/billions of years. That was Philip Henry Gosse. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos\_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis). He wrote a book in 1857 called _Omphalos,_ which is Greek for navel. His hypothesis was that Adam had a navel. It’s not so ridiculous if you consider it this way: Your navel is a relic of your birth – but everything else about your body is also the result of past stages of growth. Gosse believed that God chose to start the universe as a finished product, but bearing signs of all the developmental stages that otherwise would have been required. Thus Adam had a navel as a relic of a live birth that never occurred, the created trees in Eden had growth rings that might be taken as relics of past seasons that had never happened, and the fossils are relics of an evolutionary process that never happened. God wasn’t trying to deceive us, he was only trying to save time. This is, of course, a classic example of what scientists call a “nonfalsifiable hypothesis”: It would be impossible to discover or even conceive of any evidence that would conclusively disprove it. > [@Lochdale](#): > > Now, colour me ignorant (thank you for the links) but can anyone summarize the argument for ID and their flaws? This is something I know very little about other than the fact that creationism seems juvenille. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent\_design:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design:) > [@](#): > > **Evolutionary vs. ID views** > > According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur randomly, and environmental stress selects against those variations that are not as advantageous as others. From the intelligent design viewpoint, these random variations exist but are not the explanation for the appearance of new “kinds”. The definition of a “kind” is vague, usually something like a genus rather than a species. For creationists, it should allow room on Noah’s Ark for a pair of each kind. New kinds arise when the designer steps in and causes significant variation to occur. Actually, ID is not closely tied to “kinds”, but to complex changes whenever they occur. > > Adherents of intelligent design call the idea that God causes new species to come into being a viable scientific hypothesis (see scientific creationism). Nearly all scientists consider it pseudo-scientific, on the grounds that it is an amalgam of false or unsupported claims within the realm of science, and of philosophical or religious claims outside the realm of science. (See methodological naturalism for a discussion of supernatural explanations in science.) > > To underscore the pseudo-scientific nature of ID, in the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington looked through thousands of scientific journals searching for any articles on intelligent design or creation science—he didn’t find any. Other more recent surveys have also failed to find articles on these subjects in the primary scientific literature (not to mention that only a handful of these articles were even submitted). Some ID proponents claim this is due to a global conspiracy, career requirements, etc. In response, opponents can point out that tenured professors are pretty safe, and anyone presenting convincing evidence of design would be lavishly rewarded and published in the popular press. In contrast, many articles have been published in highly-ranked journals which specifically deny the claims of ID (for example, Lenski et al. 2003 The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139-44 ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list\_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract)).) > > Advocates of intelligent design argue that the biological evidence presents serious problems for macroevolution. For example, they claim that all the major types of animals appeared at the same time in the fossil record with no evidence of common ancestry (a claim that is not supported by subject experts)—a pattern they say is inconsistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Modern evolutionary biologists’ concept of evolution goes beyond the gradualism proposed by Darwin in the nineteenth century. Better evidence gathered since the time of Darwin has shown that evolution occurs at a steady Darwinian rate until a large environmental change occurs (such as an ice age, asteroid impact, or very large volcanic eruption). Evolution then occurs at a greatly accelerated rate. Those who adhere to the concept of intelligent design seem to ignore the modern concept of evolution, say many scientists. > > They also argue that complex organs that cannot function without all their parts provide evidence for a cause having intelligence. Usually, this intelligence is attributed to God. This is one aspect of the idea that some biological developments are too complex to have come about without having been designed. This idea is particularly pressed by Michael Behe under the rubric irreducible complexity in his Darwin’s Black Box (1996; see reference above). See also: argument from design and especially argument by lack of imagination. This is also called a “God in the gaps” argument. All of Behe’s examples have been explained without the need for design (for example, [2] ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list\_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12736677&dopt=Abstract))). > > Proponents of intelligent design point to complex biological structures such as the eye, birds’ wings, the existence of mitochondria, bacterial flagella, etc., arguing that such structures could not possibly have developed due purely to random mutations, even with the aid of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships, such as plants which can only be pollinated by a specific species of insect, which in turn can only reproduce by using the plant, could not have arisen, they argue—a typical chicken and egg problem. It is argued that these kinds of biological features are by their very nature too interdependent to come into existence independently through a natural process and then become so intricately intertwined. Opponents say these examples have been adequately explained. > > **Criticism of intelligent design** > > The strategy of ID critics takes two main forms: > > Looking at certain examples, often the same ones as ID proponents use. > > Refuting the logic of the arguments invoked to support ID. > > These critics assert that most of intelligent design’s examples of things that cannot be explained by evolution have since been explained by new advances in genetics and biotechnology. For example, the development of mitochondria was once puzzling, but Lynn Margulis’s theory of their evolution from endosymbiotic bacteria, once rejected even by biologists, has amassed enough evidence that it is now widely accepted. > > Critics of ID say that evolutionary development of such structures as eyes and wings has been simulated in computers. Studies of fig wasps have revealed how symbiotic species can evolve. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/30 "2004-11-08T01:44:08Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Now, colour me ignorant (thank you for the links) but can anyone summarize the argument for ID and their flaws? This is something I know very little about other than the fact that creationism seems juvenille. [Darwins Black Box](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=58927) (long) [“Intelligent Design” teaching in schools…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=123502) (long) [What exactly is intelligent design?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=147392) (shorter, with good links) ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/31 "2004-11-08T04:47:20Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Slight hijack here but with all due respect a large portion of the Democrat’s voting base either aren’t that bright themselves and probably reject the notion of evolution (if they have any notion of it all). Many minorities and blue-collar whites who vote Democratic are equally as ignorant when it comes to these sorts of issues. Witness the vote against gay marriage in Hawaii and the support amognst democrats for said bans. I don’t disagree with you here. I have never claimed as much. The evolution debate is in a pretty unique niche, as it is one of the only active spots at the present where religion and objective science come into direct opposition. The objective evidence is sufficiently complex to make it non-obvious. It is very similar to the anti-geocentrism debate a few hundred years ago, where some of the main arguments made against a heliocentric theory was that the Bible (in some readings) said that Earth was in the middle. At least people like Tycho Brahe and others did come up with alternate geocentric theories to fit the objective evidence, instead of dismissing it out of hand like most of the ID and creationism crowd does. > [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I’m not a scientist…just an engineer. I agree its offensive, but if its not done then you can pretty much write off the fight IMO, because the creationist/Intellegent Design people will keep hammering away. The only way to beat it is to allow side by side comparisons so that people can judge rationally for themselves. At least they WILL be exposed to Evolution and will have SOME information to make a comparison…instead of mis-information. Like I said, I think the proponents of Evolution should concentrate on getting the message out more, and making sure that whats taught in elementary and highschool is GOOD Evolutionary science. The problem is that it is too easy to dismiss the evidence out of hand, because the vast majority of it (things like convergence of evidence from paleontology, taxonomy, and genetics) is subtle and non-obvious. If there was a whole semester devoted to evolution, I would agree that we should spend a few days on this. But when you are spending a week on it, you need to hit the facts and not dally around. Questions about validity should be dismissed, because there are no questions about the validity. I took two years of biology (advanced placement) in high school. I didn’t start getting a handle on evolution (except some high points – natural selection, convergent and divergent evolution, radiation of species, maybe we touched on gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium during Bio 2) until I took a class on it in college. It is a very difficult theory. I would say it is far more subtle and challenging to get a good handle on the subject than it is to get a reasonable knowledge of other areas of biology, for instance genetics or cell biology. I say this as a geneticist. I say this as a 4 year member of this board, who has answered many GQ threads about both. The ones on evolution are usually based on an utterly wrong conception of the theory. You are setting your goals too high if you think that a regular high school education will give people the tools that they need to make a rational decision, based on evidence, on which theory is better. Yeah, it’s a little like mind control. But that’s kind of what school is. Nobody clamors to teach alternate takes on history (like holocaust revisionism). We don’t teach alchemical principles in chemistry class. Limit biology class to what actually is biology. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/32 "2004-11-08T04:49:35Z")
**Lochdale** I forgot the last sentence off of my reply: Like I said, it is just a coincidental overlap between the evangelical wing of the Republican party and those who rail against evolution. I would be surprised if the debate weren’t coopted into political terms, given what we have just been through in this country. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/33 "2004-11-08T04:50:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Firstly, **Gigo** , let me express pleasure at running into someone who can use “Lysenkoism” in a sentence and not think it has something to do with a household cleanser. Harumph! I thought that was a prerequisite for posting on the SDMB. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468/34 "2004-11-08T18:51:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Firstly, **Gigo** , let me express pleasure at running into someone who can use “Lysenkoism” in a sentence and not think it has something to do with a household cleanser. :D. glad you noticed! Although I must say that republicans of reason could use Lysol Cleanser (the Thick Formula) after getting in bed to get the votes of ID believers. > [@elucidator](#): > > I counsel patience. First, they will over-reach themselves, they always do. Second, don’t sweat it. The kids aren’t listening anyway. Thoid, teachers have their ways. So far, but I think this administration will make moves to ensure that less teachers like that, will get within hearing distance of the “moral majority’s” kids. > [@xtisme](#): > > This is nothing new since the election btw…I read an article about it in last months Wired magazine, how the Intellegent Design folks were starting a new offensive. > > BTW, its not just ‘liberal elite’ that think Evolution is true and that those folks who are grasping now at Intellegent Design are boneheads. Thats part of your problem…you really DO think that only ‘liberal elite’ have a lock on rational thought. Well no, but do you really believe that the republicans will ignore the religious right on this subject after the party got their votes too? That was an important part of the Bush victory. I don’t think only the liberal elite has a lock on rational thought. I think the moderate and rational right has a bigger responsibility now to stamp out ignorance like this one. The religious right will demand a payment for their support to the Republicans, they would never give a hoot on what the left thinks on this and other controversial (but IMO important) scientific endeavors, the Republicans thought it would be nice to get their vote, the reasonable Republicans have to deal with them now. What I am saying, is that this goes beyond politics and the future depends on what the current administration concedes to them, and how damaging all this will be, will depend on the tacit support or opposition from moderate republicans. > [@capacitor](#): > > As I have said before, many religious people are very, very angry because they perceive that their religion has been insulted and degraded by atheist-biased evolution teachings. Many in this board may deny it, but the religious are fighting back big time based on this perception. I do see that **capacitor** , I also see that on the new report from National Geographic, it is clear to me that now this anti-evolution rhetoric affects now the development of new medicines. I am not kidding when I think this is the new Lysenkoism. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Isn’t that the theory Jack Chick tried to push with “Big Daddy”? [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html) Hi **Guin**! It seems that Jack does not dwell much on the young earth ideas, only for a few panels does Jack attempt to discredit the fact that many rocks are millions of years old. I found a good criticism of the track here: [http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html](http://www.whiterose.org/dr.elmo/blog/archives/001781.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/meanwhile-in-kansas-anti-evolution-is-back-thanks-to-the-election-too/273468.md?page=1)