WND: Rev. David Rives — Cosmic Evolution

We were once again awakened by the blaring sirens and lights flashing on the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™. The blinking letters on the wall said WorldNetDaily. WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed.

The Retard-o-tron™ directed us to WND’s presentation of a new video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. WND’s irresistible headline is Astronomer asks: Where did it all come from?

The rev’s video is titled “Spontaneous Creation” It’s only two minutes long, filled with information about something he calls “cosmic evolution” which he labels “the religious theory of the big bang.” He says that thing is not a creation theory. Why? Because it doesn’t explain the laws of nature!

If that doesn’t motivate you to click over to WND to watch the rev’s stimulating and informative video, then we fear there’s no hope for you. Click now — before it’s too late!

Curmudgeonly programming note: Due to the political convention, there’s not much news of the real controversy to write about, so use this as a Free Fire Zone.

Copyright © 2012. 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

15 responses to “WND: Rev. David Rives — Cosmic Evolution

  1. Brace yourselves for some fresh quote-mining by the Discoveroids based on this study, reported on BBC as ‘Detailed Map of Genome Function” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141

    Dr Ewan Birney, of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, who led the analysis, told me: “The term junk DNA must now be junked.

    “It’s clear from this research that a far bigger part of the genome is biologically active than was previously thought.”

    Discoveroids love this kind of journalistic science — and I will wager it is the newspapers and not the research paper that they will be quote mining

  2. Megalonyx says: “Brace yourselves for some fresh quote-mining by the Discoveroids”

    Their post is already up. I was anticipating it because one of our operatives tipped me off to the earlier article. I donno if I’ll bother with it or not. Casey’s so boring. Maybe I’ll wait for Hambo.

  3. A thought occurred to me while I was observing a protectively-colored butterfly — if the Intelligent Designer was responsible for the design of all species, why would he favor one species over another? In other words, why would the Designer give camouflage to one species that would make it harder for another species to feed itself?

    This one question would seem to negate the whole idea of an Intelligent Designer. Protective coloration of any sort, whether it’s camouflage, mimicry, warning coloration such as on a bee or coral snake, or distractive design such as on a zebra points exclusively to natural selection, not Supernatural Design. (IMO, “Supernatural Design” is a more accurate term for what the Discovery Institute is proposing than “Intelligent Design”, because an Intelligent Designer would itself need an even more intelligent designer to create It, and so on and so forth. Supernatural implies what it is — oogity-boogity.)

    However, back to the main point — camouflage, mimicry and distractive design enhance the survivability of just the individual members of the species itself, to the detriment of the predators. So why would The Intelligent Designer play favorites?

  4. retiredsciguy asks: ” So why would The Intelligent Designer play favorites?”

    If the intelligent designer existed, he would have created the shmoo.

  5. If the intelligent designer existed, he would have created the schmoo.

    It’s “shmoo,” actually, but no matter, SC. If the intelligent designer was Al Capp, I could live with it! (Off topic, but the gentleman who wrote, almost in its entirety, the Wikipedia page you linked to also contributes to this blog.)

  6. NeonNoodle says: “the gentleman who wrote, almost in its entirety, the Wikipedia page you linked to also contributes to this blog.”

    Not surprising. It’s a natural common interest. Oh, thanks for the spelling info. I’ve corrected my link.

  7. if the Intelligent Designer was responsible for the design of all species, why would he favor one species over another?

    Oh, but its perfectly clear from the bible that he does favor one species over others – ours. There’s no biblical promise not to deceive sparrows or wildebeasts, so giving butterflies and lions protective coloring is perfectly okay.
    Of course, that does bring up the question as to why humanity’s prey animals don’t all look like this. :)

  8. retiredsciguy

    @eric: Put two of those spots together and it’s a different story:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automeris_io

    Enough to make a bird think it was flying right into an owl.

    “…its perfectly clear from the bible that he does favor one species over others – ours.”

    Yeah, right — that’s why he drowned everyone but Noah & family. If we were so favored, we would be dolphins.

    I still say protective coloration, whether for prey or predator, speaks strongly against the whole idea of “Intelligent Design”. Curmy’s right — if there were an Intelligent Designer, there would be a shmoo.

  9. @NeonNoodle: A couple of facts about shmoos relevant to creationism:

    *As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, the creationist claim that natural selection is a tautology is refuted by the example of the shmoo. Shmoos, if they existed, would be something which could not arise by natural selection.

    *Shmoos are intelligently designed, but they do not exist. Therefore intelligent design is not a sufficient explanation for existence.

  10. Working on my Curmudgeon inspired political
    thoughts, I am reading more about founder Thomas Jefferson and trying to follow the evolution of Wm Jennings Bryan’s effect on American thought on science, religion and Darwin. This part I’m sure of , Bryan talked himself to death at the Scopes trial. literally.
    Why so effective at spreading his philosophy in the American south? He had quite a fact filtering system turned on intellectually apparently.

  11. I watched the video and it seems that David is just reminding Christians not to buy into the big bang theory, or even use it as an explanation of how Goddidit, since he states that it isn’t a creation theory (and implies that it isn’t even a part of it). That’s actually good. His followers wont’ be trying to co-opt science and moreover, their increasingly religion-pure but embarrassingly science-ignorant voices will have less and less status and clout, in politics, education policy, etc.

    First I’ve heard of the schmoo rebuttal. Terrific! ( oops no, don’t mean terror/terrifying/terrible Lord thy God). Let’s try Fantastic! (uh oh, I wasn’t implying supernatural or imaginary). Wonderful? (full of wonder will do, in a pinch).

  12. Donna says: “First I’ve heard of the schmoo rebuttal.”

    It’s not original with me, but I donno where I first read it. It ought to be more popular.

  13. My reaction to the end of the Rives video was “Huh?”. That is your argument. Just a statement that the Big Bang is not a sound theory. OK?

    I continue to get dumber every time I watch one of those. And I cannot afford to get much dumber.

  14. One other thought. I was saddened to see Nat Hentoff had a post on WND. I used to read his jazz reviews. Has he fallen this far?

  15. techreseller says: “I was saddened to see Nat Hentoff had a post on WND.”

    Was it a WND exclusive? Sometimes syndicated columnists appear on WND, but I think that’s the syndication’s decision, not the columnist’s. For example, I sometimes see a column by Thomas Sowell there, but I don’t think of him as a WND writer.