Tuesday, November 24, 2009


Time magazine apparently has bloggers on the payroll just for comic relief.

Today saw the webplication of a piece in which a nobody political journalist was interviewed on Darwin's legacy, because, you know, political journalists are experts re:biology*. (The same principle, I presume, that makes Jim Carey an expert on vaccinations, Suzanne Sommers the person to go to for cancer cures, and Christopher Hitchens a, you know, REALLY DEEP thinker.)

Here's the money quote from the interview:

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

On a related note: Einstein? What did he ever do for mankind? Relativity -- good and well, but it's all just a theory, but compare that to, say, the invention of the combustion engine and omig*d does Albert-dear turn out to be quite the slacker! And that Newton guy -- gravity, ha! The laws of motion, yeah-yeah-yeah, as if we weren't able to hit fly balls waaaaaaaay before that uppity don was even born!

In related news: The Texas Superconducting Super Collider project canceled for lack of practical relevance. (Oh wait, that was 1993.)

Plus also: I click around on the web incarnation of a popular magazine and a bucket of stupid is emptied over my head and I am surprised exactly why?

* I know the comparison is unfair, but blaming Darwin for eugenics and social 'darwinism' (his half-cousin Galton -- now that's a different story) is like claiming that Jesus Christ was a terrorist just because a few of his disciples firebomb Planned Parenthood buildings.

No comments: