You're advertising WHAT??

We’re a young family and I’m a scientist so as you can imagine we are short on nickels to rub together, so I sold out to the man and added ads to this blog (Day one – 37 cents – thank you Mom!). This is a Google-run enterprise so you would think they would be pretty good at matching content, but what do I see when I checked for comments today (Day 21 – one comment – thank you sister!)? AN AD FOR AN ANTI-EVOLUTION BLOG!!! One can only hope that a) I get another 37 cents for clicking on it and b) he/she gets ads for my site.

It would be marvellous to have a civil discussion about evolution and theology. The problem really is lack of common ground, and the kindest way I can put it is that evolution is based on evidence and intelligent design is based on faith at best and wishful delusion at worst. But for meaningful discussion about science, there are two basic popular misconceptions that have to be cleared up. First, a theory in science does NOT mean some wacky idea that hasn’t been proven yet. So when it’s called the ‘Theory of Evolution,’ that is not to imply that it is a neat idea that may have some merit. In this case, theory means a group of principles that guide our understanding of basically all of biology. Secondly, just because there are two explanations does not mean that they have equal validity. So often, the media will give equal time to two explanations of a phenomenon. It gives the impression that there is a credible other side; but as for global warming and vaccine efficacy, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I keep thinking of Lewis Black stand-up: “FOSSILS! FOSSILS! FOSSILS! I WIN.”

Creationism as a competing theory fails on the ground that it is not science. In a fascinating decision, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania ruled that Intelligent Design – the more popular cousin of Creationism – is not science. The case Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District pitted was a captivating test of this question, as the school district was trying to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum. Essentially, because Intelligent Design is not a theory based on evidence, it does not qualify as science. You can read the full decision here and an interview with Judge Jones here.

Anyway, that’s my rant. As I watch the ads being renewed I can see there are a lot of blogs devoted to creationism. Kudos Google. I wonder if after my agonizing post about SUVs there will be a Hummer ad next. Let me know.