Apropos of nothing

[not_your_real]

Does it bother anybody else that popular science articles about biology, and even some real refereed science journal articles, have to defensively state now that Evolution is Real at the beginning or end (unless the article's main thrust is to attack the ludicrous cavils of the ID folks, in which case the disclaimer would be redundant)? Wasn't this simply understood when I was growing up?

Next I'll be ranting about rampant superstition and the pandering to the lowest common denominator committed by all those cable channels that fill the niche PBS used to service (History, Discovery etc.) I'm turning into my dad.

Comments

[sara-merry99.livejournal.com]

Much as I enjoyed the show on the Black Beast of Exmoor last night (because I that sort of Mysteries Of The Unexplained oony-noony crap is one of my guilty pleasures) I was decidedly non-plussed to have found it on the *History* Channel.

Because there's no definition of the word "history" under which it applies.

So I'll be with you in being your dad. :D

[cousinsue.livejournal.com]

That's just foolishness. Especially when they mean Ambiogenesis, not evolution.

Fools.

[sector-r.livejournal.com]

It seems like a cable channel's original name and mission wind up being like a vestigial tail after a couple of years: something that used to be important and functional but that dwindled over time and eventually became nothing more than a faint reminder of its origins.

Case in point: MTV Music Television, which single-handedly brought mainstream popularity to the humble promotional music video -- making and breaking musicians' careers along the way -- but now airs mostly so-called "Reality" shows and maybe an hour of actual music videos each day.

It happens to every cable channel except the premium cable channels where they actually get paid depending on how well they please their subscribers.

...and another thing

[sector-r.livejournal.com]

Creationists are doody-heads.