1. Why does evolution matter at all? And really, that's two questions.
a. First, is it important as a scientific matter, at the level of research? I've heard that the theory of evolution has some application to diseases. Is this true? Is Darwin considered a great scientist by modern scientists?
b. Is there something particularly appalling about evolution ignorance that doesn't apply to ignorance about, say, the War of Independence? Why do pro-evolutionists get so angry about the prospect that kids won't know about Darwin if the other people got their way? Surely, kids are ignorant about a lot of important things, are they not?
2. How could anyone's religion possibly be threatened by the theory of evolution? I'm genuinely baffled here as well. Surely, if one believes that God is almighty, and if one believes that God created man, then God could create man however the heck he liked. Is the objection to the theory of evolution merely that it contradicts the literal 7 days and 7 nights bible creation story? Or are non-literalists offended by evolution in some other way?
These questions are framed in tone and with contextual signifiers that make them appear to be flippant and satirically rhetorical. And therein lies the substance of the entire discussion. To write such an assinine sentence as "I'm genuinely baffled here as well" openly disdains and trivializes the discourse with the apparent intent to dysphemically ridicule members of religious groups as well as express disdain and contempt for furtherance of the whole issue. Why?
The author is clearly not interested in generating serious ongoing philosophical engagement on the topic of belief. Nor is the author willing to risk a lengthy critique of the lack of hermeneutically sound principles upon which our 21st century scientific methodologies are premised. And it is entirely unlike the author wishes to open lines of questioning about the semiotic constructs of terms like "theory," "ignorance," "create," and so forth.
These questions are too easy to respond to flippantly and malodorously. They are intended to be so, in that the nature of "what matters," and what matters to whom when, are offered not for response but for crass showmanship. What does really matter? Ultimately not very much if you are not beholden to one's self interests and private property and pursuit of economic power. And that is the rub here; the underlying essence of all of this, and that is why it is all too sad.
