33 thoughts on “Why Republicans should actually like evolution

  1. I wonder if Perry would prefer his antibiotics to be intelligently designed based on knowledge and understanding of evolution, or if he’d rather go for the traditional sprinkling of bird blood.

    Regardless, this is another excellent example of Trudeau’s ability to lay bare the idiocy of the body politic.



    1. While far from incorrect, I think ‘intelligently designed’ is a bit of an unfortunate choice of words in this particular context. 😉

  2. I would like a poll done, and a venn diagram made, for the readers of Pharyngula and WEIT. Because if PZ beats you to it, this blog shouldn’t double post. But maybe I represent only 5-10% of WEIT readers.

    1. Even if they posted everything in perfect sync, there will be those who prefer the crowd of commentators who gather at the one or the other.

      Yeah, I saw this first over at Pharyngula. But I’m glad that Jerry posted it, because I’d rather see the reactions of the regulars here than of the Pharyngulite Horde.



      1. Indeed, Pharyngula used to be my favourite website/blog but these days I prefer it round here, better class of commenter. Obviously cat people are more interesting than cephalopoddy types.

    2. I’m sorry but your comment, and the implication that I simply took this strip from PZ, is totally unfair. First, I haven’t seen Pharyngula for over a day, and this strip was sent to me by a reader, who is credited in the post. Second, this is just going to happen sometimes because P.Z. and I have not only mutual readers, but overlapping interests. Finally, when I get something from another site, I always credit it.

      What point are you trying to make?

      1. Not to mention, this is your website. You can post any damn thing you like. “Pdblouin” can start her/his own site and post only 100 percent original content if s/he so desires.

        What an odd concern.

      2. I’d like it even better if this strip was mirrored on every website on the World Wide Web.

        Anyway, how about if we vote on whether we prefer Jerry Coyne’s 4 X 1 version or P. Z. Myers’ 2 X 2 version?

    3. Not everyone who reads WEIT reads Pharyngula.
      I stopped reading Pharyngula when it started
      making me feel like I was watching the Jerry Springer show. WEIT reminds me more of Charlie Rose, and I prefer that.

      Even if they posted about the same thing every single day–who cares? They’re two different individuals with similar interests, but different takes on the world. What’s wrong with that?

    4. I don’t care if PZ posted first; I read Jerry first, so if I see it here, then PZ should retroactively not have posted it (and I will use my neutrino communicator to tell him so).

  3. Yeah, Jerry, PZ is always prattling on about Xian loonies and evolution, too, so we would appreciate it if you would confine your blogging to the niche subject of exotic cowboy boots.

  4. It’s a false dichotomy to suggest “Republicans” “don’t like” “evolution”.

    Not all Republicans are total creationists, in fact, many of us believe that one doesn’t exclude the other. What’s wrong is when evolutionists try to say that creationism is wrong, or vice versa. Creationism does not exclude evolution at all, and evolution doesn’t exclude creation. Both are theories, since nobody was around to see any of it happen, and can never be proven beyond doubt.

    1. Eh, no.

      The Theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural Selection is perfectly incompatible with any variety of creationism.

      The only hope for compatibility would be if the gods doing the creating did their creating not by magic poofing of organisms but by manipulating the existing environment, thus favoring species with traits better adapted to the new environment. You know? Like what humans have done with crops and domestic animals?

      And since that’s not even remotely close to any form of creationism I’ve ever heard proposed, we can safely rule out the possibility of creationism being compatible with evolution.

      Both are theories,

      No. Evolution is a theory; it is falsifiable and logically consistent. Evolution is neither; it is bullshit.

      since nobody was around to see any of it happen,

      Worng. Evolution not only has been observed repeatedly, it’s now become the sort of thing that high school students observe as part of their studies.

      and can never be proven beyond doubt.

      Science deals with falsification, not proof. And Evolution has withstood more attempts at falsification than just about any other scientific theory. The breadth and depth of the evidence is simply mind-boggling.

      If you need more, you might check out this book about Why Evolution is True by this Jerry Coyne bloke….



      1. No. Evolution is a theory; it is falsifiable and logically consistent. Evolution is neither; it is bullshit.

        FWIW, I believe the second ‘evolution’ was meant to be ‘creationism’.

    2. Creationism does not exclude evolution at all, and evolution doesn’t exclude creation.

      that may be the single dumbest thing I’ve heard today, and I’ve been watching Bob Enyart lie his ass off over on Pharyngula!

  5. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, Republicans love science, most science budgets go up under Republican gov’ts, because the one thing you know for sure is that no Republican wants to die poor! Unfortunately they need all the uneducated religious idiots to vote for them because otherwise they’d never get into gov’t. This means catering to their ignorance by being, or pretending to be religious. If Republicans actually stood for something defensible, instead of rampant immiserisation of the working and middle classes and their own unfettered kleptocracy, they wouldn’t need religion to get into office.

Leave a Reply