Not that I was ever a fan of Archie comics, but I thought they were a little less inane than this:
You can read the whole thing online, if you want to. Sanctimony really doesn’t go well with corn, though.
(via Tikistitch)
We’ve got a new Gallup poll on evolution to agonize over. It’s nothing but bad news—we are a nation of uneducated morons. Gary chose to weep over the political correlation: look how membership in the Republican party is tied to ignorance about science.
The clear majority of Republicans are screwed up. And you know, I’m not too happy with the Democrats, either. These results tell us that the population across the board is messed up, confused, lied to, and festering in ignorance—it’s just that right now the Republican party is a magnet for the stupid.
What’s the cause? Look a little more closely. Here’s another chart that exhibits an even more marked difference.
Yeah, being a Republican may not be causal, but going to church every week since childhood probably induces brain damage. This is just a correlation, of course, so how about asking those people who reject evolution why?
| % | |
| I believe in Jesus Christ | 19 |
| I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth | 16 |
| Due to my religion and faith | 16 |
| Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise | 14 |
| I believe in what I read in the Bible | 12 |
| I’m a Christian | 9 |
| I don’t believe humans come from beasts/monkeys | 3 |
| Other | 5 |
| No reason in particular | 2 |
| No opinion | 3 |
The overwhelming majority credit their religion; the two secular excuses (“not enough scientific evidence” and “we didn’t come from no monkeys”) are common enough phrases among the creationists that I expect a majority of those are ultimately due to religion, too. So tell me, everyone: why are scientists supposed to respect religion, this corrupter of minds, this promulgator of lies, this damnable institution dedicated to delusion, in our culture?
Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it’s about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse.
Jason Rosenhouse has an exhaustingly exhaustive report on a lecture by Thomas Woodward, in 4 parts (here are parts 1, 2, 3, and 4). Woodward has written a book defending ID, and is going around the country giving testimonials to his faith. As is common with these folk, he also did a little prophesying.
Woodward closed by setting the date for the end of Darwinism’s reign as the dominant paradigm at …wait for it…2025. Later he suggested that it might be within ten years that evolution as we know it suffers a decisive failure. And then he predicted a severe nosedive for evolution in the next six to twelve months as Behe’s book soaks into the public consciousness.
I am reminded of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who prophesied the end of the world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1975. The millennial catastrophe did not arrive, but also…the Jehovah’s Witnesses did not fade away with their failures. I am not anticipating any sudden resolution of the evolution-creation pseudo-controversy in either 2017 or 2025.
This one has lots and lots of photos and details—I don’t think I’ll ever need to visit Ken Ham’s folly, to my relief, since I can already see everything that’s in there.
The article makes another good point: this museum is going to be a tool to drive apostasy. It’s so ridiculous, so cartoonish, that some people are going to go into it mildly supportive of creationism and come out wondering what kind of kooky nonsense they’ve affiliated themselves with.
Another morning, another creationist whine out of the blue. Here’s another letter, and as usual with these well-thought out rants, I’m an afterthought—it’s addressed to Ken Miller, but then the guy figures he might as well clog a few more mailboxes while he’s sending it out.
As is traditional, the formatting is exactly as I received it. What is it with kooks and Comic Sans, anyway? And could they possibly trade in a few bold/italic font changes for an occasional paragraph break?
John Scalzi lives right near the Creation “Museum,” and he refuses to go. Good for him, I say — we’re going to have to start starving Ken Ham soon. On the other hand, if anyone could mock Ham’s Folly effectively, it’s Scalzi … it’s also so much fun to torment him. So his readers are teaming up to compel him to go.
Here’s the deal: Scalzi has a price. If people send him at least $250, which he will turn around and donate to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, he’ll suffer through the cheesy dinosaurs and silly lies, and also write an amusingly snarky summary of the visit. If he gets a thousand dollars or more, he’ll reward everyone a bonus prize or two.
This is brilliant. Rather than sending a scientist to that joke of an exhibit, send a comedian. Laughing at these clowns is the best way to expose them. So go ahead, get on over there and chip in a few bucks, and let’s get an appropriate commentator to review the show.
Duae Quartunciae (will he ever settle on a name?) has an excellent historical summary of the Answers in Genesis civil war. There’s loads of fun stuff there, including an account of a prior split that involved accusations of witchcraft and “demonic infiltration”, Ken Ham’s pitiful claim that he is currently under “spiritual attack”, and bizarre sleazy shenanigans, largely driven by the nastily ambitious American group led by Ken Ham.
In October of 2005, there was a fateful meeting between AiG-USA and members of the board of the Australian group [now called Creation Ministries Internation, CMI] — but not the management of the Australia group. The Australian board signed a rather startling agreement, in which they give AiG-USA a license to use and modify all the articles on the website, while at the same time holding AiG-Australia liable for any damages that might be claimed arising from such changes. Basically, they handed over complete control of the articles to AiG-USA, took full responsibility for ensuring authors would also consent to this, and accepted full liability for any damages should the original authors object!
It’s got lots of links to the documentation published by both the Australian and American creationist groups. One of the wonderful benefits of this kind of internecine battle, besides the fact that they are eating their own, is that all kinds of useful internal information spills out of the wounds. And now it’s all nicely organized in one place.
That Egnor fellow believes that if minds are material, than “all of humanity’s notions of moral value and culpability are nonsense”—like most creationists, his arguments collapse into a rather pointless fallacy, the argument from consequences. It’s enough for me to just say that if I’m correct, then Egnor is the one who believes his morality is gone, not me. It’s a theme running through his latest bloviation, that truth is irrelevant if ideas are a product of the brain, to which I have to say, “so what?”
Anyway, I’m pleased to say that I don’t need to waste time with the babbling Egnor, since ck at Arbitrary Marks has taken him down for me, in a
three
part
series on “iron spikes and materialism.”
Now I want the rest of you to get cracking and slay a few creationists for me. I like this business of sitting back with a kind of imperial hauteur while the knights go out and skewer the dragons.
Wesley has the story, and you can get more details from Toledo TV news story and a Cincinnati Enquirer article — but the silly news is that one of the models for the Creation “Museum’s” Adam was a fellow named Eric Linden, who was associated with a site called the Bedroom Acrobat. The “Museum’s” video with Linden has been yanked, and Linden himself seems to be rushing to dissociate himself from the naughty web site, claiming now that he only bought the domain name.
I say there is nothing wrong with running a site about sexual activities; Linden should not be ashamed of it; it is disgraceful that Answers in Genesis should be so puritanical and sex negative that they don’t even want to use a short clip of someone merely known to have had sex; and if Adam had been real rather than a fictitious, mythical character, he probably would have been quite the bedroom acrobat himself, since he would have had to have fathered the entire human race.
I think the Creation “Museum” should bring back the video and increase the coverage of the Adam and Eve story. If they want to keep their visitorship up, I have a suggestion: more full frontal nudity, with an unabashed and open display of the importance of sexual activity in God’s fertile creation. And if attendance starts to flag, I have a two-word term for a bold plan that would grab the media’s attention again: animatronic genitalia. When Adam first meets Eve, a roar and a <sproingggg!> would be perfectly appropriate.
It would be OK, since it’s all in the Bible. I mean, if “dinosaur” is in there, I’m sure “erection” is too.
Answers in Genesis has a new article up whining about their nemesis, the National Center for Science Education. The bad press they’ve been getting from the science side must be getting to them.
The funniest bit is at the end. Did you know that Eugenie Scott was prophesied in the Bible? She must be a sign of the end times.
