The O’Reilly Fear Factor: God vs. Science

Fear O'Reilly FactorWhen the anti-Darwin faction of the Flat Earth Society sought to legitimize their biblical belief that God, not evolution, produced the earth and its myriad life forms, they originally branded their sermonology as Creation Science. Apparently, that wasn’t good enough because now they’ve escalated the scientification of Genesis by dressing it up as Intelligent Design (ID). This is a peculiar positioning that is more suggestive of the development of the iPod than the origin of the species.

Common sense notwithstanding, the media is taking up this PR-incubated nomenclature and giving it parity with the time-tested science of evolution. But leave it to Bill O’Reilly to rocket this nonsense into the stratosphere.

In his Talking Points Memo for August 3, 2005, titled “God vs. Science,” he courageously takes God’s side. Presumably because he believes that God can hold his breath underwater longer than Science can.

“…the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don’t want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism.”

He goes on to correctly point out that Genesis should not be taught in science class, but curiously, uses that as his argument for including ID because “evolution is not a universal belief.”

Mr. O’Reilly needs to be advised that evolution is not a belief at all. It is a scientific theory. ID is a belief that has no basis in science, hence its rejection by the respected institutions he himself cites. But in his comments he contradicts himself by endorsing the view that evolution is accepted science, then insisting it be compared with faith-based propaganda.

“This isn’t a complicated matter. Public schools have an obligation to present all subjects in perspective…But if you’re going to discuss the biological procedure of abortion, for example, you have a responsibility to tell students that half the country feels it’s morally wrong.”

I wish I could ask him why there is a responsibility, in a discussion of biology, to tell students that some people have moral objections to a procedure. Many people have moral objections to vaccinations, organ transplants, or psychoactive drugs. Should medical students have to stop at the end of every chapter and be told that, “this procedure is opposed by Lutherans and Hindus?”

Such disclaimers would be mandatory in O’Reilly’s world where facts have no standing and science is fascism.


This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink. Short URL: