i'm sick of this.

the modern evolutionary synthesis is now over 75 years old. you would have to be at least that old to be tied to the ideas that existed before it.

we're getting past the point, now, where this is an acceptable discussion. i want to hear media take the responsible position here, which is not providing creationist "balance" to entrenched and thoroughly tested science but outright rejection of superstition and ignorance.

all the old people are dead, now. that was true ten years ago, really; it's beyond question, now. so, let's get with it.

let's say you were born in the year 1900. maybe you went to a one-room school (and walked uphill both ways, no doubt - in the blizzard. in june.), and maybe it taught you your r's just fine. but, maybe the core of the curriculum was the bible. maybe something as simple as an acid-base test was kind of exotic.

so, it's 1970. you're old. you know what you were taught, and you're resistant to changes. holding to your ignorance is not a particularly strong argument, but it's at least some kind of excuse. and, democracy demands some kind of representation.

that excuse is no longer valid, or at least is not here. almost everybody alive today was born after 1935, and had perfectly open access to scientific literature. it's a choice to be ignorant.

...and that choice should be acknowledged for what it is and treated as what it is.