Is IDiocy Genetic?

Far-right crackpot Phyllis Schlafly weighs in on Expelled, repeating the usual lie that "Dr. Richard Sternberg, a biologist ... lost his position at the prestigious Smithsonian Institution after he published a peer-reviewed article that mentioned intelligent design."

Now I see that her son, Roger Schlafly, has the same affliction: about the transparent effort to relabel creationism as intelligent design in the book Of Pandas and People he writes: "Judge Jones found that the Pandas book was subsequently edited to remove references to creationism, and made inferences about the motives of the Pandas authors. I think that it is bizarre to denigrate folks for complying with a court decision."

This transparent effort to exonerate the writers of Of Pandas and People for their editing just won't fly. It is completely obvious to anyone with connected brain cells that the replacement of "creationism" with "intelligent design" was not a good-faith effort to "comply with a court decision", but a dishonest and deceptive way to make an end-run around the intent of the decision.

Roger Schlafly thinks "Evolutionists [are] preoccupied with motives". But in the law, as in everyday life, motive is often taken into account when judging the actions of people: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

It seems that, in this case, IDiocy has a genetic component.