Open Letter to Republican Presidential Hopefuls

We beg your indulgence, dear reader, for this weekend departure from the usual contents of our blog. We try not to do this very often, but news of The Controversy between evolution and creationism is scarce at the moment. We focus on that as part of our larger concern for preserving the Enlightenment values upon which our civilization depends, so this isn’t too far off-topic for us. We can’t forget that if we lose our freedom, there isn’t much else that matters. Therefore, this is our open letter:

The Republican Party these days is considerably different from what it was almost half a century ago when Barry Goldwater ran for President. Back then it was essentially devoted to a strong national defense and an otherwise limited federal government, with relatively low taxes, minimal economic regulation, a vigorous free enterprise system, and a strong dollar.

Times have changed. As we described in Creationism and American Politics, after Lyndon Johnson’s betrayal of the old Solid South, and the exploitation of the resulting turmoil by Nixon’s Southern strategy, the GOP has seen an influx of people and ideas that had theretofore been largely confined to the Democrat party — we’re speaking here of what are now known as the “social values” voters. We’ve discussed our thinking about this before (see Open Letter to the Republican Party).

Now we’re approaching a new presidential election period, and a number of hopefuls are out there, testing the waters. We’ve discussed many of those people before (see Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists?) and we’re unhappy that so many are creationists. Nevertheless — in our always humble opinion — compared to what we have now almost anything would be preferable. Almost anything.

To help us sort things out, we have one burning question that we’d like to ask of everyone who seeks the GOP presidential nomination. It’s a rather long question, but it requires a very simple answer — one which we regard as absolutely crucial. For this purpose, we’ll ignore foreign policy, assuming that all GOP presidential candidates are for a strong national defense, and we’ll also assume they’re all for stronger border controls. Here’s the Curmudgeon’s Question:

Assume that you become President and could propose and see enacted only one major legislative package. This will be your legacy. This is how you will be remembered in the history books. Which of these two packages would you choose, abandoning the other as being of lesser importance? The two packages — you must select one — are these:

1. The “Traditional Republican” package: Significantly reduce taxes, regulation, “entitlement” programs, and the size and scope of government; remove impediments to the domestic production and refining of petroleum and also to the building of nuclear power plants; and balance the federal budget — all resulting in a booming economy and the likelihood of a major reduction in the national debt over the next decade.

2. The “Social Values” package: Prohibit abortion, pornography, and same-sex marriage, and tear down the wall separating church and state (by constitutional amendment if necessary); re-introduce prayer in public schools, require teaching abstinence instead of “sex education,” and add creationism to the science curriculum — thereby reducing the influence of secularism and assuring the blessings of divine Providence upon our nation.

That’s it. Pander all you like while you’re campaigning, but not here. Your Curmudgeon will tolerate no ducking, no nit-picking, no long-winded speeches about how you’d like to push for both packages, and no complaints that you’d like more or different choices. We’re not leaving you any wiggle-room. Just pick one package or the other as your prime concern. Then we’ll know what to think of you. And so will the voters.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Klinghoffer: The Soul-Crushing Burden of Science

Once again we have the opportunity to discuss an article by David Klinghoffer. He’s a “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), among 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).

We won’t bother to repeat our description of Klinghoffer’s creationist oeuvre here, but you can check it out in this recent post. Klinghoffer’s latest appears at the Discoveroids’ blog: What Intelligent Design Offers to Agnostics.

Does that title strike you as being just a little bit crazy? Can you imagine a science course named “Chemistry for Anglicans,” or maybe “Astronomy for Jews”? Or either one offered “for agnostics”? Of course not! Hydrogen is hydrogen and the moon is the moon. Science is science, and its practitioners are attracted to it from every background from all over the world. The Discoveroids’ “theory” of intelligent design — were it science — should appeal to all rational people regardless of their views on religion. What is Klinghoffer talking about?

Well, let’s get past the goofy title and see what Klinghoffer has to say. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Intelligent design has as much to offer to the unbeliever or the unorthodox searcher as to the confirmed traditional believer. It might even have more. Does that surprise you?

Don’t try to tease, David. It’s not cute coming from you. Just get on with it:

If ID were religious in nature, then with what theology or with what faith exactly is it congruent? ID is as much a religious idea as is the cosmology of the Big Bang. Sure, it’s more readily reconciled with Judaism or Christianity than you can say of Darwinism or materialism, but that’s something different. It also has as much to offer to the unbeliever or the unorthodox searcher as to the confirmed traditional believer. It might even have more.

We can easily answer David’s question about the theology with which ID is congruent — it’s any theology that wants to suppress reason and establish a theocracy to rule over an uneducated, mindless population. That’s quite sufficient to distinguish it from the Big Bang. Let’s read on:

It’s far from the case that only orthodox religionists have perceived what Alfred Russel Wallace, evolutionary theory’s co-founder, called in 1889 the “crushing mental burden” that materialism imposes on modern man.

Wallace again. The Discoveroids’ bizarre metamorphosis into the cult of Wallace-ism is virtually complete. See: Discoveroids Adopt Alfred Wallace as Godfather.

Wait — we must interrupt to comment on Klinghoffer’s mention of “materialism.” As creationists always do, Klinghoffer is — and we suspect it’s deliberate — equating philosophical materialism with something very different — methodological materialism. The latter is a procedure (not a philosophy) which is inherent in the scientific method. We’ve explained that in detail here: Bring Me An Angel Detector!

That ends our interruption. Sorry, but it was necessary. Then Klinghoffer purports to quote the venerable Wallace:

[Warning -- what follows is an unverified creationist quote. Klinghoffer claims Wallace said:] As contrasted with this hopeless and soul-deadening belief, we, who accept the existence of a spiritual world, can look upon the universe as a grand consistent whole adapted in all its parts to the development of spiritual being capable of indefinite life and perfectibility.

Eeeyoweeee! Science is a “hopeless and soul-deadening belief.” No wonder the Discoveroids love Wallace. Klinghoffer continues:

He describes beautifully that sense of optimism that I’ve identified elsewhere with “enchantment,” the hope of an invisible reality behind the façade of the physical world.

Ah, so that’s the purpose of the Discoveroids’ “science” — it’s all about enchantment! Intelligent design is truly wonderful stuff. Here’s one last excerpt from Klinghoffer’s post:

Materialism corrodes the confidence we might otherwise have that any search for meaning that we undertake is not necessarily in vain. Intelligent design offers the hope, by the refutation of materialist science, that “something is out there,” whatever it might be, capable of granting genuine purpose to our existence.

There it is, dear reader. Klinghoffer says that “materialism” — his misleading word for rational, evidence-based science — “corrodes the confidence” that we might understand the world. Our only hope is to embrace Oogity Boogity! Blessed be Wallace!

Oh, back to Klinghoffer’s peculiar title: “What Intelligent Design Offers to Agnostics” — our conclusion is that it offers nothing to anyone, but that’s only our Curmudgeonly view of things. Opinions vary.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Louisiana Creationism: Racism Is Darwin’s Fault

One of our far-flung network of clandestine operatives (code name “Bayou Boy”) tipped us off to a letter in the Advocate, the major newspaper in Louisiana’s capitol city of Baton Rouge.

It’s written by Darrell White, founder of the Louisiana Family Forum (the “LFF”). That’s the creationist activist group largely responsible for the Louisiana Science Education Act (the “LSEA”) which was passed in 2008. The law encourages the use of unspecified “supplemental materials” — wink, wink — in science classes. The LSEA is one of those anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism “Academic Freedom” laws — the only one enacted so far — modeled after the Academic Freedom Act promoted by 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).

Darrell’s letter is titled Racial issues, political courage. He’s writing about an event reported earlier in the Advocate: Program aims to get people talking about race. That earlier article was about the:

“Race and Gravy” meeting held at the First United Methodist Church in Baton Rouge. [It was] designed to get people involved in small dinner meetings where discussions about race could take place … .

It sounds like a worthy event. In the article about it, there was no mention of evolution, or Darwin, or any of the other subjects that frequently pop up in The Controversy between evolution and creationism. But Darrell seems to be on a mission, and he sees “Darwinism” everywhere. Here are some excerpts from his letter, with bold font added by us:

A decade ago, state Sen. Sharon Broome, D-Baton Rouge, filed House Concurrent Resolution 74, in which she spotlighted the unmistakably Darwinian assumptions that underlie much of today’s racist thinking. (See http://retiredjudges.org/hcr74.)

Broome’s sensible resolution presented irrefutable evidence that biological racism (i.e., “inferior” and “superior” race characterizations) was used as a scientific justification for Nazi atrocities. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) even sounds ominously like the subtitle of Charles Darwin’s 1859 book, “… The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Some moronic resolution in the moronic Louisiana legislature presented “irrefutable evidence” that “Darwinian assumptions” about “biological racism” justified Nazi atrocities? Okay, sure. And of course, Darrell mentions the subtitle of Darwin’s book — because it uses the word “race.” We assume he never read Darwin’s book with that subtitle, because it says nothing about human evolution or human races. We’ve discussed — and debunked — that nonsensical blather about Darwin’s subtitle here: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. We said:

In the on-line text of that book, we see that Darwin, like his contemporaries, uses the terms “race,” “sub-species,” “variety,” and similar expressions interchangeably in connection with a great number of animals (dogs, horses, etc.) and also plants (flowers, cabbages, etc.), sometimes intermixing them in the same context.

In other words, Darrell doesn’t know what he’s talking about. (Because it’s unlikely that Darrell knows anything about Darwin or his work, we don’t have to consider the possibility that he may have read the book and is deliberately lying about it.) Let’s read on in his letter:

The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., includes in its displays a Nazi-utilized volume — complete with earmarks and underlining — penned by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, describing the “science” of eugenics and used as a support for their plan of “perfecting the human race” by, as he put it, getting rid of its “undesirables” while multiplying its “desirables.”

Darwin’s cousin? So what? Charles Darwin disagreed with his cousin about the value of eugenics — he thought it was harmful to the evolution of our species — and we quoted him on that in our post to which we just linked. (Here it is again: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin.) Note, by the way, that Darrell has nothing to say about anything actually written by Charles Darwin in the Holocaust Museum. That’s because Hitler never wrote a single word about Darwin, and was most likely clueless about evolution. It was Winston Churchill who actually did read Darwin, as we pointed out here. But Darrell wouldn’t know about such things — he’s obsessed with his own version of history.

One last excerpt from Darrell’s letter:

History may show that courageous Americans such as Sen. Sharon Broome and those involved in “Race and Gravy” discussions are best remembered because they brought needed critical thinking skills to bear on the issue of racism.

If that’s an example of what creationists mean when they call for “critical thinking,” then it’s yet another reason why all their “Academic Freedom” bills should be defeated.

Addendum: We checked out Darrell’s link to the Broome resolution. Her original draft is an insane rant that blames everything on Darwin. The final version, presumably passed by the legislature, omits all references to Darwin.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Herman Cummings Hurls Another Challenge

We are in awe at the persistence of Herman Cummings, who describes himself as “the leading expert on the book of Genesis.” He’s the author (using the pen-name “Ephriam”) of Moses Didn’t Write About Creation! Our last post about him was Herman Cummings Challenges the Whole World!

As before, Herman’s latest appears at a website called iNewp — the People’s Press. His article is titled Atheism in Illinois’ Education System. If you scroll down to the end of it you’ll find Herman’s challenge about which his article is written. We’ll begin with his challenge, which he sent to Representative Ed Sullivan Jr., Representative Carol Sente, Senator Dan Duffy, and Senator Terry Link of the Illinois State Legislature. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

I’m writing to you because I can’t seem to locate an email address for the school board of Community High School District 128.

Hey, Herman, your Curmudgeon is here to help. Here’s their website. At this page you’ll find the administrators and their email addresses — just mouse-over their names.

Let’s continue with Herman’s challenge:

The Community High School District 128 officials have said they have spoken with science teacher Beau Schaefer, and confirmed that he was teaching creationist beliefs at Libertyville High School.

Beau Schaefer? What a coincidence! We’ve been writing about that situation. See: Chicago Creationist Science Teacher Keeps Job. Herman’s challenge goes on:

I commend Mr. Schaefer for caring enough about the students to try to teach them the truth about pre-historic history [Aaaargh!!], but it’s my guess that he has limited knowledge of such, and only knows the false doctrines of Genesis which he has learned from others who taught him.

Ah, Herman approves that Beau is trying to teach creationism, but he fears that Beau isn’t teaching it correctly. We continue:

The “Observations of Moses” conveys the correct rendition of Genesis chapter one, revealing what God was actually showing Moses about the history of our Earth and universe. A 62 minute PowerPoint presentation is available, but academia and the Clergy are afraid of it, keeping the people from learning the truth of Genesis.

Academia (influenced by Atheists) does not want to show students an opposing view to the evolution theory. Evolution is their “god”.

[...]

I am asking that you put a halt to any proceedings being held at Community High School District, until they, or your education committee, has seen the presentation. Without the correct information, no one can make a proper decision.

Herman’s letter to the state legislators goes on a bit, but now lets scroll up to the top and see what Herman writes about his challenge:

Atheism in our education system is a bigger threat than terrorism.

Wow! Here’s more:

If students are given ungodly instruction, they grown up [sic] being ungodly. God gave the command to not commit adultery (fornication) to Israel for a reason. … How hard is it for a man in his mid-twenties to find a virgin for a wife these days?

Ah, so ungodly instruction is the cause of that. We never knew. Moving along:

[T]he point I’m making is that the mind set of education is denying the truth of prehistoric history [Aaaargh!!], because atheists want to force their beliefs upon other people, under the pretense of “no religion in science class”, which is a lie.

Verily, truth of prehistoric history must be told! Another excerpt:

As my earlier articles stated, Creationism and Theology are at fault, for not seeking the truth of Genesis. For example, if modern day Israel denies that their nation once crossed the Red Sea (1598 BC), their whole heritage is a lie, and they have no right to the land they occupy.

This is powerful and far-reaching stuff. Herman’s knowledge takes him from prehistoric history to the lack of virgin brides. We therefore recommend that you click over to iNewp and read all of Herman’s post for yourself. There is much to think about, and it’s time, dear reader, that you opened your eyes to The Truth™.

As always, we urge Herman to carry on with his work. The world can’t ignore him forever.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article