denialism blog

In today's NYT

It's softer than the outright denial of evolution that was assumed when he raised his hand at the debate, and certainly doesn't sound like young-earth creationism. It seems to be intelligent design creationism without explicitly mentioning intelligent design - although some keywords are present. He, of course, uses many of the classic denialist arguments.

For instance:

We have a classic divide-and-conquer tactic of asserting that because there is some dispute over different evolutionary theories, there is room for doubt. I consider this a goal-post moving argument - you can't believe in any science until there is absolutely no conflict within a scientific field.

If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Many questions raised by evolutionary theory -- like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations -- go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

Denial of macroevolution:

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species.

Evolution means we're dirty apes:

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos.

And finally, an atheist materialistic conspiracy theory (mixed with impossible-to-prove assertions):

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Blogs 4Brownback (my new favorite blog) is already declaring victory! You see, everything is a victory for a crank.