Monthly Archives: October 2010

Rush Limbaugh: Evolution = Liberalism

As Clint Eastwood’s character, Dirty Harry Callahan, always says: “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Alas, Rush Limbaugh has not yet learned that vital lesson.

We’ve posted before about El Rushbo’s bizarre views on evolution, the last time was here: Rush Limbaugh on Evolution — Again! But the man seems obsessed; he can’t leave it alone.

At Rush’s website you can read the transcript of his broadcast on 28 October. This segment is titled Liberalism is a Genetic Defect as Demonstrated by Chris Matthews.

Rush starts out talking about the news that “Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’. Your Curmudgeon noticed some articles about that, but for several reasons we decided to ignore it — primarily because science journalism is so abysmal that we suspected the whole thing was being wildly exaggerated. If you’re interested, here’s a writeup at PhysOrg: Researchers find a ‘liberal gene’.

Anyway, the headlines about a “liberal gene” were irresistible to Rush. Here are just a few snippets from what he says, with bold font added by us:

Everybody tries to figure out, “How can a liberal be that way? You know, why do people do stupid things?” It’s in the brain, and now we’ve got science to actually back it up.

This is a classic example of pick-and choose science. Rush readily accepts a journalistic account about one new piece of research that fits into his political viewpoint. But does he just as readily accept all scientific findings — even those he doesn’t like? No, not even well-supported theories that have been successfully tested for generations. Stay with us, you’ll see what we mean.

The middle of Rush’s transcript is something he plays from the Chris Matthews show. We won’t bother excerpting that, but you can click over to Rush’s website to read it. Rush concludes that recording by saying:

Anyway, arguing with these people is a waste of time because they — it’s now been documented by science — are suffering from a genetic defect.

At that point the transcript indicates a break — probably for a commercial or something — and then:

Liberalism: A genetic defect. Why not? In fact, liberals are descended from pond scum. They say so. They claim it to be true. They insist, they teach that they are descended from pond scum. “What do you mean by that, Rush?” Well, very simple, folks. They don’t believe in creation. They believe in evolution. And they were swimming around in some primordial soup as amoebas or some other fishy life form. They were swimming around in the algae, swimming around in the pond scum.

Good, huh? Here’s the rest of that paragraph:

The best argument against evolution is liberals. Liberalism and liberals themselves are the best argument against evolution. So why is it so hard to believe they have a genetic defect when they insist and they teach that they are descended from pond scum?

That’s where the transcript ends.

What can we say? We know it upsets some of our readers, but your Curmudgeon has been a long-time fan of El Rushbo. That’s because we like his politics — but not his off-topic rants about science, about which he knows nothing. These increasing episodes of creationism are becoming alarming.

Anyway, dear reader, whether Rush likes it or not, we are all brothers in pond scum. We are kin not only to Aristotle and Shakespeare and Darwin and Einstein, but also to Jack the Ripper, Flipper, Rin Tin Tin, and the Geico Gecko. That’s the way it is.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Another Intercepted Discoveroid Conversation

Once again, dear reader, we have received data from our top secret InterStall™ bathroom listening device, which one of our operatives stealthily placed between two stalls in the men’s room of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

The last time we reported on an intercepted communication was almost two months ago: Another Secret Conversation, and a month before that we had our first successful data grab with that device: A Secret Conversation.

Here’s what we received from the latest voice-activated transmission. As before, the voices are fuzzy and there are plumbing sounds in the background, so we can’t be certain who’s talking or whether our transcription is accurate. From the context, we’ve labeled one voice as “Boss” and the other as “Westie” — whoever they may be. We’ve added some links where we think it’s appropriate, but you’ll have to make of this what you will:

Boss: Westie, it’s time for my annual meeting with Mr. Moneybags, and our livelihoods depend on his generosity. I don’t know what to tell him. Everything we’ve done lately has been a flop.

Westie: I know, Boss. The legislative program has gone nowhere since Louisiana, and even that state has been a catastrophe [see Klinghoffer: “You Caught Us. So What?” ].

Boss: Our litigation efforts don’t seem to be getting us anywhere. I’m sorry we ever got involved in that Coppedge mess [see David Coppedge v. JPL & Caltech (09 Oct 2010)].

Westie: Me too. It was Casey’s idea. And that museum case might get embarrassing [see Blood in the Water? and also Premature Climax?].

Boss: So what can I tell Mr. Moneybags? What’s he getting for all the money he gives us? He’s poured millions into our operation!

Westie: Look, we’re desperate. Why not tell him that we’re behind the recent rise of politicians like Christine O’Donnell? It’ll look like we’re accomplishing something.

Boss: Christine O’Donnell? Are you crazy? Have you seen her video? [Christine O’Donnell Clip: “Evolution Is a Myth”.] That thing is all over the internet and she looks like an idiot. We can’t take credit for her! Besides, that video is from 1998. We had nothing to do with it. That’s around the same time we were drafting the Wedge Strategy. Our ID operation was only three years old back then [see Center for Science and Culture].

Westie: It doesn’t matter. We were active at the time. She could have picked up our ideas, so we can claim credit. Mr. Moneybags won’t know the difference.

Boss: Yeah, well, maybe, but she probably got her science from Jack Chick, or maybe ICR. I don’t know if I like the idea of taking credit for a ditzo like her.

Westie: What if she did get it from ICR? Most people can’t tell the difference between us and them. Besides, she’s no more embarrassing than Behe. And she just might end up in the Senate.

Boss: Not likely.

Westie: That’s okay. There’s a load of others coming along [see Creationists on the Ballot: November 2010]. Tell Mr. Moneybags that we’re responsible for all of it. We’ll win some and lose some, but we’re producing results. That’s what he wants to see.

Boss: I donno … it might work. Anyway, I’ve got nothing else to brag about, so why not?

Westie: And it’ll make up for the loss of that moron, Mark Souder. We had even given him a part in Expelled! What a clown. He coulda been a contender. [See: Mark Souder, Creationist Fool, Resigns!]

Boss: Don’t remind me!

Westie: And there’s that whole new thing floating around out there about “no separation of church and state.” I don’t know where it came from, but we can take credit for that too.

Boss: Good lord!

Westie: It’s a great mantra, Boss. If it catches on, we won’t even need to bother with intelligent design. We can just take the next logical step to theocratic government. That should make Mr. Moneybags happy.

Boss: Westie, you’re right! We had nothing to do with any of that stuff, but Moneybags doesn’t need to know that. We can ride the wave. Yes! Our little think tank is going to be around for a while longer.

That’s all there is, dear reader. We can’t vouch for any of it, but we think that’s what we heard. InterStall™ strikes again!

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Have a Jack Chick Halloween

Yes, dear reader, this holiday weekend is the ideal opportunity for you to spend some time with Jack Chick.

If you’re not yet familiar with the Creationist Comic Books from Jack Chick, you ought to be. That’s where at least 25% of the American population get their science education.

But there’s more to Chick’s lifetime work than creationism. Much more! He’s an expert on geology, astronomy, biology, and theology. Who could forget the thrill of reading about Jack Chick on Dinosaur Extinction?

For your weekend pleasure, we’re reminding you about Chick’s comics on Halloween. We recently told you about one New Jack Chick Comic for Halloween. But there are others. Here’s the whole list so you to enjoy them online.

Happy Halloween
Boo!
The Little Ghost
Stinky (We wrote about this one before.)

If that’s too grim, how about one on Sodom and Gomorrah: Doom Town. It’s certain to lift your spirits.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #159: Why Create Apes?

This one comes from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Why Did God Create Apes with Human Features?

The continuing existence of apes is a big issue with creationists. Earlier this year we wrote about a certain Seattle think tank that was struggling with the chimp issue: Discoveroids: “No Facts, Please, We’re Creationists”.

The last time AIG wrestled with the problem (unsuccessfully) was discussed here: If We Evolved From Monkeys, Then Why …? AIG said that argument should no longer be used by creationists, but at the time we thought they wouldn’t be able to get away with it.

Now it seems that the ape question is back at AIG, but this time it’s in a form we’ve never seen before, so for that reason this is interesting. Their article is AIG’s answer to this question which they received. The bold font was added by us, and scripture references are omitted:

My son asked me an interesting question the other day which I struggled to give a satisfactory answer. If God knew that apes and the like would be used so passionately by evolutionists to support their theory, why did he create them?

Hey — good question! Why would evolutionists be given such striking evidence? If we were specially created, why is there anything around that looks even remotely related to us? Here are some excerpts from AIG’s answer to that profound question:

First, similarities between organisms — like those between humans and apes — cannot be used to prove evolution. All living creatures down to bacteria share similarities … . We can argue that the similarities are actually evidence for a common Designer.

Yes, the Designer could reuse some designs, but why did the Designer reuse that design? It wasn’t necessary if we were specially designed, and the reuse of that particular design gives evolutionists evidence to support their theory. Let’s read on:

Whether one interprets similarities as evidence for evolution from a common ancestor or evidence for the Designer depends on one’s presuppositions. The evolutionary idea of homology — inferring common descent from structure similarity — is an assumption by those who reject the Creator’s account in the Bible.

Okay, but the question still remains: Why create apes at all? We continue:

Second, God designed apes to show His creative power, but belief in man as a highly-evolved ape may become a sign of judgment when man honors the creature rather than the Creator. Although man was created to know and glorify God, the first man and woman rebelled against Him for a satanic lie. Satan, the “father of lies,” deceived Eve by distorting the truth and leading her to doubt God’s Word. Eve was deceived, and Adam willfully ate the forbidden fruit. Their sin brought death and suffering into the world.

Does any of that answer the question? Here’s more:

Ever since the Fall, Satan continues to employ his insidious method: taking God’s truth and twisting it to deceive sinful man.

[…]

One of those lies is evolution. Atheists use evolution to deny the truth of God’s Word, relying instead on man’s fallible reasoning alone to explain the origin and design of the world.

Okay, we get it now. The ape — as visual evidence of evolution — is something like the forbidden fruit. If we allow ourselves to be misled by such evidence, we’re doomed! So the ape is a trap cunningly set by Satan. All clear new? No, it isn’t clear to us. The question still remains: Why was the ape created in the first place, if it’s so easily used by the devil? AIG has an answer:

ThirdIf God had not created apes, however, evolutionists would just find another “common ancestor.” The problem is not the evidence, but sinful man’s faulty interpretation of the evidence made in a futile attempt to avoid recognizing the Creator, Law Giver, and Judge. Instead of not creating things Satan would warp for evil, God sent the remedy for the deadly disease of sin: the Lord Jesus Christ.

Aha! So there you are. AIG says you have to choose — the ape or Jesus. It’s your choice, dear reader. One final excerpt:

In conclusion, our pastor often gets tough “why” questions from his daughter, but he says the answer is ultimately easy: “Because God wanted to.” Knowing God’s infinite wisdom and holy nature, we should trust His will and ways.

There you have it — the ultimate explanation! Now you know.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article