My last post analyzed a parody website that realistically criticized the new Spore game. Think what you will regarding my apparent knowledge of whether it was a parody, but I wanted to show (in this post) how realistic that parody site really is, and how that fact, and the reaction to the blog in question, should send chills up the spine of any rational human being. Why? Because there are people out there who actually believe in that hogwash! Not only do they believe in it, but they also go way out of their way to promote it, and to stop rational people from keeping irrational practices out of government and public schools.
And now the punch line. I’m going to show you, in a nutshell, how frightening this all really is, with examples of anti-evolutionism and anti-rationalism. Here are some examples of what should be parodies, but, in fact, are frighteningly real:
Expelled — Ben Stein’s attempt to promote Intelligent Design. By the way, it’s not a parody, although it should have been.
The (Rick) Santorum Amendment — You think someone1 being critical of a game on evolution is bad, try a (former) U.S. Senator’s take on how we should be “educating” our children:
The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.2
Michael Behe — A professor of biochemistry. This must be a parody, right? From the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:
Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.3
Phillip E. Johnson — The popular author of Darwin on Trial. Again from Kitzmiller v. Dover:
Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID’s “Wedge Strategy,” which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80- 81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the “Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose.”4
David Berlinski — mathematician critic of evolution.
Steve Fuller — “social epistemologist.”
The Wedge Strategy — Anyone involved is guilty of self-inflicted delusion and the desire to inflict that delusion upon others en masse. The goal of this campaign? “[T]o “defeat [scientific] materialism” represented by evolution, “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and to “affirm the reality of God.”5
William Dembski — Total nutjob. Should have been a parody.
My commitment is to see intelligent design flourish as a scientific research program. To do that, I need a new generation of scholars willing to consider this, because the older generation is largely hidebound. So I would like to see textbooks, certainly at the college level and even at the high school level, which reframe introductory biology within a design paradigm. 6
Young Earth Creationism — My head is really starting to hurt now. Did you know that there are people who assert that the Earth and the universe are only about 6000 years old? I bet you knew that.
And my current favorite: Ken Hamm! We should give him an award. Seriously. (Too bad we can’t give him a Darwin Award, eh?)
AiG has a whole range of books and DVDs dealing with dinosaurs. As I have often stated, dinosaurs are used by evolutionists more than many things to convince young children (and adults) of evolution and millions of years. That is why AiG has produced some beautiful dinosaur books for children, as well as special DVD programs like the one Buddy Davis and I produced for kids.
I find that the secular media and evolutionists attack us vehemently for teaching that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. They state that this is ridiculous and anti-science. They scoff and mock that we would even suggest dinosaurs lived together. This is despite the fact that there are numerous animals and plants living today alongside of people that evolutionists teach lived with or even before dinosaurs in their millions-of-years timescale (for instance: Wollemi pine tree, crocodiles, coelacanth fish, etc)—which shows clearly from even this perspective that it is not outlandish to believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
However, evolutionists can come up with absolutely outrageous statements about dinosaurs and ideas for kids—and consider this perfectly legitimate.7
Why don’t we read that, and think to ourselves, “Hey, this must be parody”? Because these idiots are real, they’re often well-funded, popular, and have an incredible amount of political and social support. Honestly, why aren’t we rounding these people up and putting them into institutions? Isn’t that what we do to the mentally ill? These people are mentally ill. If you saw someone on the side of the street, yelling to the sky in a wild and crazy proffering to something you cannot see, and claiming to have a direct connection and communication with the Almighty, you’d have that person checked out by a professional, and it’s quite likely the person will be diagnosed with a real mental disorder. These idiots I linked above do the exact same thing, but they do it in suits and ties, in mega-churches, on television, in books, in blogs, on Fox News, in debates, in schools, on witness stands — everywhere.
I say again, why are we treating them with any modicum of respect? They certainly don’t treat the idea that God doesn’t exist with respect. We’re all going to Hell, remember? Go confront that Christian or Muslim “friend” of yours. You know, the one who claims to be “okay” with your disbelief. Ask your friend, “If I don’t accept your belief, what will happen to me when I die?” Keep pushing, if necessary, for an honest answer. What’s it going to be?
Why are we living shoulder-to-shoulder with people who individually and collectively claim to have a personal god, a full understanding of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, and the desire to force that same personal god and that same understanding of the origin of everything upon the children of this nation, of the planet, and upon everyone else, in the form of blue laws, of censorship, book banning, national mottoes, favoring the international religious agendas of our own and other nations (and backing our own warmongering by claiming it’s divinely ordained)?
We’re all guilty of not doing enough, quickly enough, efficiently and powerfully enough to stop and reverse the pro-religious trend in the U.S. and the world. I’m guilty of falling into the trap of treating people who insist on pushing their beliefs on others with the respect I would give a fellow rational person. I’ve watched a hundred videos of debates between rational and irrational people, and I don’t see the benefit in solely continuing to engage in mere dialogue when the opposition to rational thinking is not backing down, but, instead, growing ever-stronger.
The dialogue should continue, but it shouldn’t be the end. It’s just the beginning, and, as rational people constantly on the verge of being oppressed by the religious irrationals of the world (and teetering on the edge of a worldwide holy war), we need to stand up and demand rationality in government, in schools, in all aspects of our public lives.
What? Did I forget someone who holds herself out as serious, but has an agenda and world view that any rational person would think justifies placing her permanently in a padded room? Instead, we accept the fact that she might very well one day become the vice president of the United States (and one heart palpitation away from the full presidency). Accepting Sarah Palin, in any way, is somewhat like telling your children that because some people (or maybe a lot of people) are racist, we should tolerate that point of view, and not criticize those who are racist (and, heck, you can even win the vice presidency if you’re racist!). You think there’s a difference? I think there’s no difference. A racist has a prejudice against people who do not share a similar physical characteristic. A religious fundamentalist has a prejudice against people who aren’t religious fundamentalists. We should not accept people, or give them any modicum of credit as being someone who could hold a political office, who are religious fundamentalists, with a twisted world view and oppressive agenda.
- Edit: My original comment here included an offhand reference to the alleged author of Anti Spore, a site that originally held itself out to be opposed to the game Spore because of its evolutionary theme. The site claimed to have been run by a woman with a son. Regardless of the fact that the site drew much attention, and that it mimicked other hate-filled fundamentalist sites and authors, the site has been deemed by many now to have been a hoax or parody, evident by a “Rick-Rolling” having been entered not-so-subtly at the end of the latest post. Because my reference wasn’t entirely obvious without having some knowledge of that website, I’ve removed it. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks, dryice! [<]
- Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. [<]
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_28_of_139 [<]
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_27_of_139 [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski [<]
- http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/26/careful-where-you-buy-dinosaur-books/ [<]
Tags: adults, almighty, Amendment, animal, answers, ban, banning, Behe, belief, Berlinski, bible, bio, biology, campaign, censor, censorship, children, Christ, church, creationism, creator, Darwin, dinosaur, discovery, Dover, Evolution, Expelled, fundamental, Genesis, god, Government, Hamm, Holy, human, irrational, Kitzmiller, Law, LDS, Logic, Mass, movie, Muslim, Palin, political, president, rational, Santorum, school, Science, secular, Senator, Stein, theist, theory, United States, universe, war
It’s sad that it’s nearly impossible to tell the difference between the actual nut jobs and those pretending to be such. Even sadder is the fact that those pretending are merely sitting at home typing, while the actual nut jobs are running our country.
Anti-Rationalism? Did any of these actualy flame or degrade athiesm in any way besides arguing against it? And if it should be parody explain to me this. How would you feel if us as Christians made a parody of athiest beliefs? I can see it now. Monkeys turning into humans and a big random explosion that had no explainable cause except matter and dark matter collided and we just so HAPPEND to be in the perfect spot for life. We’re the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain life. It’s not to hot nor to cold. What are the odds of that? Seriously. Then you want to go about claiming we came from monkeys because we happend to be similar? Every animal has a similarity to another. And darwin himself claimed evolution to be a THEORY. But wait…isn’t a theory an un-prooven idea? hmm…
You are mixing up the usage of the word theory. In standard terms yes a theory is a guess a hypothesis nothing proven. But scientific terms for something to be a theory it has to be generally accepted as provable and true. Other scientific THEORIES include gravity, relativity, cellular biology, atomic, and plate tectonics. Now I don't see anyone out there saying oh gravity is just a theory that means its an un-proven idea therefore I am not going believe in it.
Nick, you ignorant slut.
Monkies turning into humans? As in shape-shifting?
There’s a difference between scientific theory and the kind of theory you’re talking about. One is a guess, the other is a compelling explanation of provable data.
As for the perfect distance from the sun, thing, you’re looking at it backwards. We don’t have to exist. We do exist, but the solar system isn’t fine-tuned for US, we evolved in the context of an existing universe. So, no, it’s not coincidental that we can survive on this planet at this distance from the sun. I imagine that if there are other forms of life elsewhere, you will see that they probably couldn’t exist on our planet, unless planetary conditions are somehow identical.