Rant on.

An overlook, by one definition, can be a beautiful thing. I have not been to the Grand Canyon, but I understand there are many beautiful overlooks there, places where the natural glory of the area is overwhelming.

The other definition of overlook isn’t always so pretty. I mentioned some of this last week, how birthers and other conspiracy theorists overlook a body of evidence–ignore, really–if it doesn’t agree with their point of view. FactCheck.org has investigated President Obama’s birth certificate and, based on the determinations made by those whose lifelong training is to determine such things, concluded our president was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The birthers overlook his birth certificate (which has been produced) and the experts who have seen it agree it’s legitimate. They overlook the birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper at the time.

Now, I know liberals overlook things, too, but–and my opinion is biased–it seems to me the conservatives do a worse of it.  There was a discussion of sorts in mid-2008 between ultra-conservative Andy Schlafly and evolution biologist Richard Lenski.  Andy runs a website, Conservapedia.  Richard spent the last twenty years working on an experiment.  You see, some misguided Creationists have, from time to time, stated that since evolution can’t be proved in a lab, it’s not science, thus equating it to Intelligent Design.  Well, Mr. Lenski went out and ran this experiment to test evolution in a lab and he succeeded.

This did not sway anybody of significant Creationist persuasion, such as Andy Schlafly.  Mr. Schlafly emailed Mr. Lenski asking for his data.  However, Mr. Lenski had already made this data available in the article Mr. Schlafly was attempting to discredit.  Mr. Lenski replied to Mr. Schlafly saying as much and in a polite, professional manner.  Mr. Shlafly continued to overlook what the data he overlooked the first time–by his own account, he only “skimmed” the article–and again demanded to see Mr. Lenski’s data.  Mr. Lenski was less polite in his second reply but no less professional, in my opinion.  You can see the details of the entire exchange in this article at RationalWiki.

Now, I understand Mr. Schlafly and his ilk don’t want evolution to be true.  They want everything to have been magically done by their definition of God.  However, Mr. Lenski’s experiment is only the latest piece of evidence in a mountain of evidence.  Certainly, it is significant–my limited understanding of the results promotes what I have believed for a long time, that evolution is not a random thing, but a careful, steady process doing exactly what needs to be done from one generation to the next–but it is not the first, only or last proof for evolution.

To me, it’s like standing on one of those overlooks at the Grand Canyon, and overlooking–ignoring–the Canyon itself.  It would be foolish to step forward and fall to one’s death just because you don’t believe (for whatever insane reason) the Canyon cannot or does not exist.  Gravity doesn’t care what you believe; you’ll fall whether you think there’s a drop there or not.  Evolution is the same:  You can overlook the mountain of evidence, trying screaming “IT ISN’T SO!!!!” with your hands over your ears and your eyes shut, but evolution will remain a fact.  Ignoring it isn’t lethal, but denying it–or the president’s birth certificate and other evidence of his origins and religious beliefs, etc–is, in my opinion, just as foolish as overlooking the Grand Canyon’s existence.

Rant off.