I don’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading this post that was “promoted” to the front page of RedState.com, trying to prove that Republicans are not anti-science… with an ignorant rant in favor of teaching “intelligent design” creationism.

Yep. Really.

Writer “realityunwound” tries to turn the tables and say that “liberals” are anti-science (hah! gotcha, liberals!) because they refuse to acknowledge the wonderfulness of creationism: Liberals are anti-science: reading between the lines of intellectual bullying.

Those liberals! Always intellectually bullying us with facts! And science!

Includes numerous misspellings, grammatical mistakes, misplaced apostrophes, and odd capitalization, of course. This is a capsule image of one of the GOP’s major problems. It’s too depressing to go through the whole mess line by line, gentle readers, but here’s an excerpt that will give you the flavor of it:

What’s the problem with advocating alternative theories in science class? Intelligent Design proponents weren’t advocating that Evolution be thrown out of the classroom, only that it be taught in its true scientific context, as a widely held belief with scientifically legitimate alternatives. The I.D.’ers here are reduced to an easily marginalized stereotype (passionate Evangelical Christians). Did the author interview every opponent to discover their religious or philosophical belief’s? Is there any chance that an impartial, unbiased scientists would allow room for Intelligent Design?

We’ve dealt with this silly argument so many times at LGF that it gets tiresome to keep repeating it, but “intelligent design” creationism has absolutely no legitimacy as a scientific theory; there isn’t a single peer-reviewed paper that supports it, there is no research behind it, there are no reputable scientists who promote it, and the most famous (actually, the only) biologist identified with ID, Michael Behe, has been explicitly denounced by his own department at Lehigh University. Their statement:

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

I recommend you follow the links “realityunwound” provides, to the kinds of websites he thinks prove modern science wrong. For example, this one: Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong.

Calling that a “kook site” would be too kind. It’s a mind-numbing compendium of every long-debunked creationist talking point in the book. If you have a day or two to spend at it, you can find answers for every single point at talkorigins.org.

One more quote from “realityunwound” before we conclude:

Just because it is supported by an enormous body of evidence, doesn’t mean it’s not speculative. The implication here is that there is absolutely no evidence what so ever for intelligent design. Also, simply because it’s the foundation of the current biological sciences doesn’t make it true. The science of medicine was based on a faulty premise before germ theory. Does that make germ theory was false, only does it mean the whole system was previously built on a faulty assumption? This paragraph works great to marginalize the opposition, but it doesn’t do much at all to further the conversation.

Good grief.

And remember, this was elevated to the front page at RedState. This is why so many people believe the GOP has a problem with science — because it does.