Pharyngula::Constitutional evilutionism?

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Constitutional evilutionism?

PZ Myers • 29 Comments (last page)

I'm familiar with the creationist's "argument from personal distaste"—they don't like evolution because it implies that Jesus was half chimpanzee—but here's a new variant. Jason Rosenhouse finds some Schlaflyites who seem to deify the founding fathers:

Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a “scientific” issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

Strange…I think the Constitution is a pretty good document, and it would be a good document if it had been written by a wombat or a rutabaga. It's authority should derive from its propositions and arguments, not from some invisible, unconfirmable, and entirely imaginary property of its authors.

I note that the Constitution also fails to say anything one way or the other about evolution. It's also deficient with regard to basic principles of chemistry and physics.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3577/UOJu7cG3/

Comments:

#53935: Cosma — 12/17 at 09:07 AM
Personally, I am appalled that the Founding Fathers left us no guidance with respect to the axiom of choice.

#53936: — 12/17 at 09:24 AM
And in 1886 the supreme court extended the protections of the constitution to corporations, thus making corporations persons.

#53938: Arun — 12/17 at 09:37 AM
It is like saying that if man is an animal, he is also a cannibal, because he eats animals.

#53940: Josh — 12/17 at 09:59 AM
The Constitution also fails to weigh in on religious doctrine. Madness.

#53941: — 12/17 at 10:03 AM
—they don't like evolution because it implies that Jesus was half chimpanzee—

Only half?
And how in the world does a person reach adulthood in this country not knowing that Humans are, indeed, animals?
(And maybe we shouldn't mention all the rertrovirus in the Human genome; they'd really freak...)

#53943: — 12/17 at 10:16 AM
Which half is the chimp?

#53945: just john — 12/17 at 10:22 AM
Actually, you're missing the important admission here.

What really powers anti-evolution, anti-science people is that they're afraid to admit we're animals. The we're-literally-not-animals assertion also props up many right wing attitudes toward sex, reproduction and when life begins and ends.

That's what's keeping their minds closed.

(Me, I'd be interested in a "how did human consciousness (or whatever we might call it) begin?" investigation. My untested hunch is that it happened by a leap of complexity in our sensory/memory systems. But that doesn't even attempt a sensible definition of "consciousness.") (I know, I should go look up current science before spouting off on my hunches in public.)

#53946: SweettP2063 — 12/17 at 10:24 AM
So....wasn't the bible also written by animals?

#53950: Chris Clarke — 12/17 at 11:25 AM

They don't like evolution because it implies that Jesus was half chimpanzee

Separated at birth?

<img alt="separated.jpg" src="http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/separated.jpg" width="395" height="300" >

(yes, I know it's an orang. shut up.)

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#53951: Chris Clarke — 12/17 at 11:26 AM
Dammit. Try again.

Separated at birth?

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#53952: Chris Clarke — 12/17 at 11:29 AM
Ok, here we go. Nothing like belaboring a joke.

Separated at... oh, never mind.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson

#53956: — 12/17 at 12:03 PM

I think the Constitution is a pretty good document, and it would be a good document if it had been written by a wombat or a rutabaga.

Oh that was so well put. Delightful. Thank you.

#53968: — 12/17 at 01:07 PM
"Which half is the chimp?"

Duh. The non-God half ... I don't know why, but I'm suddenly reminded of Lore Sjoberg's webcomic, where he once commented on a Newsweek poll that showed that 67 percent of Americans believed in the virgin birth of Jesus, and 82 percent that Jesus was the Son of God. Evidently, he points out, 15 percent of Americans believe that God came down and ****ed the **** out of Mary ...

(Heh. My anti-spam word is 'dominant'. Heh-heh.)

#53970: PZ Myers — 12/17 at 01:18 PM
Oh, man, Chris, you are trying to get me in BIG TROUBLE. The Discovery Institute was furious at that defacement of Mel Gibson's movie with the yakety-sax theme, and now they're going to see that comparison of Jesus and an orangutan and simply melt down.

Good work.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#53973: — 12/17 at 01:28 PM
Man, I haven't laugh that hard in a long time. I'm not sure what the appropriate response to this is:

"Four legs good, two legs better......"?

"What's that you say, Lassie? We need to form a more perfect Union?"

"I always thought Alex Hamilton was a little horsey looking."?

"Damn fine penmanship, George, considering you don't have opposable thumbs."?

"Wiiiiiiillllber!"?

"I...am....NOT....an....animal!"?

#53974: — 12/17 at 01:29 PM
"laughed." Joke's on me.

#53976: — 12/17 at 01:47 PM
Are you guys saying that the Almighty had intercourse with a chimpanzee? I hope it was at least a Bonobo. You gotta have SOME standard.

#53977: — 12/17 at 01:50 PM
And no....Jesus wasn't half chimp.Adam was. That would have made jesus like 1/32 chimp or something.

#53983: — 12/17 at 03:44 PM
"If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution."

Whaaa .... ?

I guess they forgot to read the Declaration of Independence, which specifically states that government derives from the people, not divine fiat (aka the divine right of kings). In other words, both the DoI and the Constitution specifically reject the notion that you need God to tell you what kind of government you can form.

I mean, this is goddamn US Government 101 that I learned in HIGH SCHOOL!

#53986: dr. dave — 12/17 at 04:30 PM
Good point!

And hey... if the physicists claim that everything is really made out of ATOMS, that means the constitution was written by ATOMS for ATOMS!!!

HOW CAN AN ATOM HAVE RIGHTS???

What a preposterous conclusion!

#53989: Alon Levy — 12/17 at 05:05 PM
The US Constitution was written by rich white males for rich white males. Does it mean that given that rich white males are people, the Constitution was written by the people and for the people?

Trackback: Positive Atheism: Ethical Stability Tracked on: Philosophy, et cetera (222.152.187.62) at 2005 12 17 18:50:08
An atheistic ethics tends to allow for a deeper respect for humanity, and one that is not contingent on extraneous facts about divine favour or our metaphysical makeup. For a point of contrast, consider this creationist quote (via Pharyngula)...

#53997: — 12/17 at 07:14 PM

The US Constitution was written by rich white males for rich white males. Does it mean that given that rich white males are people, the Constitution was written by the people and for the people?

Just the rich white ones.

#54002: jay denari — 12/17 at 08:06 PM
"We the Rutabagas, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility..."

At least if rutabagas wrote it, they'd know where their roots were and not try to BS us all about our "christian origins."

#54018: Anthony — 12/17 at 11:39 PM
I don't know when I've ever heard anything more ridiculous. I happen to think the constitution was written by persons for persons, and those persons also happen to be animals who are just another product of evolution. Where's the contradiction there? Also, it's funny how he's willing to grant that the conclusion of evolution allows that animals wrote the constitution for other animals - if we're still animals who can do things like that, what are we losing with the word "persons"?

(Incidentally, Alon, much as I agree, he did only say it was written by "persons for persons", not _all_ persons for _all _ persons. Even if it was written as a love letter from Jefferson to John Adams, it would satisfy that, give or take a plural.)

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Next entry: The deplorable Hwang Woo-Suk

Previous entry: A few recent papers…

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Constitutional evilutionism?

Info