Astounding? No, not according to some anti-evolution, Intelligent Design proponents like Kelly J. Coghlan whose op-ed piece appeared in Houston Chronicle's opinion page last Sunday.
Jeffrey Dahmer, America’s most infamous serial killer who cannibalized 17 boys before capture, gave a final interview to Dateline NBC before his death and explained: “If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing….”
Wow! Jeffrey Dahmer as the expert against Charles Darwin! I am confused as to why the religious right is so focused on the theory of evolution. Is it because scientists are still debating certain aspects of it that the obscurantists feel emboldened to enter the forum with their own fond views of things? Coghlan, generously cedes ground on micro-evolution but goes ballistic when it comes to the macro part. His outburst is in response to the Texas state board of education at last becoming bold enough to unshackle itself from religious bullies and leaning toward eliminating the "strength and weakness" approach to the teaching of evolution – the Trojan Horse of the Intelligent Designers.
In describing evolution, there are two distinct categories: Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is defined as small changes within the same species such as bacteria becoming resistant to drugs, birds’ beaks changing size and moths changing color. It makes perfect sense that a good designer would design each creature with built-in abilities to adapt to survive. I suspect we are all micro-evolutionists. The debate before the Board is not over micro-evolution.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is one species becoming an entirely different species such as a fly becoming a mosquito. Science has never observed macro-evolution; neither has science observed life arising from non-living matter. The debate before the Board is whether macro-evolution and life origin should be taught without “weaknesses.” The answer is no.
The validity of scientific theories and evidence comes to naught for the believers unless they can relate it to their deistic view of the natural world. But where is the room for conflict in their minds? I don't see it. If after all, one believes in a supreme creator / god, then everything is his /her will. Where is the problem? Why don't they just think of scientists as diligently engaged in deconstructing god's design and treat the science class room as an extension of a theology seminar? Just leave the rest of us in peace. Problem solved. But since the obscurantists don't seem to have many quibbles with most other scientific theories that explain natural phenomena, one has to wonder about their obsession with the theory of evolution. Could it be that it has little to do with god but everything to do with ego and their own sense of exceptionalism? Perhaps not even the man-monkey link bothers them as much as black-white-brown equality of man does? Take a look at this news story about a right wing political cartoon and decide.
Accidental Blogger 
5 responses to “Belief in evolution can turn you into a serial killer!”
hahaha! how lovely. This is as prudent as a drunk gal at a fraternity party.
LikeLike
You know, when I want to know something about morality Jeffrey Dahmer is not necessarily the first person I would ask.
LikeLike
If that’s the way Coghlan’s thinking goes, one might counter that Adolph Hitler was a Christian. What does that say for the bonafides of Christians, in that case?
LikeLike
Knowing almost nothing about evolution, I sampled a variety of texts not devoted to the politicized controversies surrounding the teaching of evolution. Coghlan’s “In describing evolution, there are two distinct categories” seemed too self-assured, if also clumsily wrought. One evidently reputable text echoes several others I sampled: “It is not useful to distinguish sharply between microevolution and macroevolution, as I will show in this volume.”—Levinton, Jeffrey S. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. p 2. Many of these texts plainly describe the “weaknesses” of macroevolution and the disputes among real evolutionary scientists as to its value. This is so silly. Why, if the literature, the very textbooks used to teach this stuff, abounds in discussion of weaknesses, is the failure affirmatively to prescribe their instruction tantamount to a direction to avoid them?
By the way, the paleontology included in Levinton’s title is exactly where science “observe[s] macroevolution”, by his account.
LikeLike
Dean,
You are absolutely correct about the specious nature of the argument regarding both the micro-macro hair splitting as well as the strength & weakness of the evolution theory. Really, it is an active desire to not understand and accept something that is a blow to one’s exalted image of oneself.
LikeLike