About This Site

Figaro rips the innards out of things people say and reveals the rhetorical tricks and pratfalls. For terms and definitions, click here.
(What are figures of speech?)
Ask Figaro a question!

This form does not yet contain any fields.

    « Do Spies Knock? | Main | They Just Want to Decrease the Surplus Population »

    The School Board Was Certainly Un-evolved

    chimpmakemyday.gifQuote:  "Breathtaking inanity."  U.S. District Judge John Jones, describing the decision by the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to include Intelligent Design in the curriculum.

    Figure of Speechthaumasmus (thaw MAS muss), the figure of wondering.

    Talk about activist judges. This liberal … Oh, wait. He's a Republican.  This federal judge somehow thinks it's unconstitutional to kidnap God and force Him to teach biology.

    Judge Jones uses a thaumasmus (Greek for "marveling") to express his wonder at the Creationists' attempt to politicize science.  Jones's thaumasmus is particularly elegant for its ironic hint at admiration.

    Snappy Answer:  "Maybe apes evolved from us."

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    Reader Comments (4)

    What issue do you have exactly with teaching *both* approaches, intelligent design AND evolution, in school? Isn’t this hijacking Darwin and forcing him to teach biology? Since when does being balanced mean believing in only ONE approach, belief, theory, etc.? Has anyone who is in an uproar about intelligent design studied the cold, hard, scientific facts about evolution? Or, are they on a rant and believe it ONLY because it’s NOT about something that MAY promote a belief in a Creator? Did they know that, scientifically, it is physically impossible for humans, fish, choose whichever “matter” you wish, to evolve at the rate of speed Darwinists say they do? Your quote below uses the word “include”. Inclusion does not mean “instead of”…it means “in addition to.” “In addition to” is my goal in how I choose to approach life, to make my decisions after considering both or many options, not just one. This is *my* freedom of choice.
    December 21, 2005 | Unregistered CommenterMartha
    Oh, I’m certainly for teaching both sides, whenever there are two of them. But in this case—creationism and biology—we’re dealing with a politicized non sequitor, along with a logical fallacy: if Intelligent Design people refuse to name the Designer, then they suffer from the cause-effect disconnect that Aristotle, that pagan, abhorred. If they CAN name the Designer, then they’re in the realm of faith, not science.
    December 21, 2005 | Registered CommenterFigaro
    Dating-online.Find Love,Friends & More http://Online-dating.7p.com
    April 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSmall-Jelly
    This is just silly, the failure to specify a given intelligent designer in no way implies a concession that no such designer exists. And if the given designer exists, then there is no effect without a cause.

    I just got to this paragraph in your book and let me say that you lack basic understanding of logic. Most of the syllogisms you create aren't even logically valid.
    September 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAtheological

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.