Republican Representative Glenn Gruenhagen of Minnesota is once again making headlines – not for legislation or meaningful contributions to education policy, but for a rhetorical smokescreen straight from the toolbox of the Christian right. During a hearing on education, Gruenhagen declared that there are “lies” in biology class – because students aren’t being taught creationism. His example sounds like it was lifted straight out of a textbook on religious pseudologic:
“You have a computer. Did someone make the computer? Or did wind, rain, time, and chance bring the computer to life?”
At first glance, the sentence sounds absurd. And that’s intentional. Because that is the tactic: Gruenhagen seeks to ridicule the scientifically grounded theory of evolution by discrediting it through an intentionally misleading analogy. His statement suggests that believing in evolution is as irrational as claiming a laptop came into existence through the weather.
But this comparison is not only misleading – it is a deliberate attack on scientific discourse. Because unlike a computer, which is clearly a product of human construction, evolution describes biological processes that are explained through mutation, selection, and time – mechanisms that have been empirically studied, observed, and confirmed for more than 160 years. No biologist claims that life arose “through chance and weather” – that is a conscious caricature, designed to exploit ignorance or spread intentional misinformation.
Gruenhagen is not an isolated case. He is part of a growing movement of right-wing politicians in the U.S. who use pseudo-scientific rhetoric to sneak religious belief into public education. This isn’t just a conservative culture war – it’s a full-on assault on secular, evidence-based education.
The creationism Gruenhagen demands is not an alternative to evolution – it is a faith-based doctrine that has no place in a pluralistic democracy’s science curriculum. Because science is based on observation, evidence, and falsifiability. Religion is based on belief. Both have their value – but not in the same space. And certainly not side by side in a biology textbook as an “alternative” to Darwin.
When an elected official seriously asks whether rain might have built a computer, the real question is no longer where he stands on evolution – but whether he can still tell the difference between an argument and an anecdote. Anyone who speaks this way isn’t seeking enlightenment – but dominance over meaning. And that is more dangerous than any storm.
English 
German 
