Monthly Archives: December 2012

Happy New Year — 2013

2013

This is a continuation of our tradition of year-end posts that showcase our legendary graphic talent. Rather spectacular, isn’t it?

In addition to that, we have some fantastic news to report. You’re all familiar with Herman Cummings. Our last post about him was Herman Cummings: Tireless Crusader. Besides his persistence in offering to teach the truth of Genesis, an offer which thus far has been universally rejected, the most intriguing aspect of Herman’s struggle has been his heretofore cryptic claim that his insights are based on a revelation he received in December of 1993 that consisted of nine words. But he has never said what those nine words were.

Until now. In The Truth of Genesis: Antarctica Holds Confirmation Of The Genesis Text, Herman discloses those nine Earth-shaking words for what we believe is the first time. He says, with our bold font:

What is the truth of Genesis? In ignorance, Creationism and Theology read the seven days serially, as if they were contained in one linear week. That is wrong. In December 1993, the Lord Jesus told me these words: “The days in Genesis are not in one week”.

Stunning, simply stunning. Maybe now, at last, the world will start to pay attention to Herman.

Aside from that — which may be the most exciting news of the century — there’s nothing else going on. Well, there’s that fiscal cliff thing if your interests run in that direction. If so, feel free to unload on us.

This is our official, year-end Intellectual Free Fire Zone for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Say what you will, but avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it. Oh, and Happy New Year!

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

Creationist Wisdom #290: Northern Delight

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (or column, or something) appears at the website of Canada Free Press, published in Toronto. That site styles itself as “a conservative free press,” whatever that may mean to them. We’ve seen them described as the Canadian equivalent of WorldNetDaily.

Two years ago that website provided the material for our Creationist Wisdom #167: The Final Climax, with which we planned to end our “Creationist Wisdom” series because we thought we could never find anything to surpass it. But you, dear reader, persuaded us to persevere. And you were right.

What we found there today is titled Every Scientific Fact is Open to Reevaluation — Except Evolution, by Conservatives. It’s by Kelly O’Connell, an American who, after “laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland,” went to to law school in the US and now lives in New Mexico. It’s a long article, so we’ll give you only a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

One of the predictable rites of the biological establishment is the outraged, condescending response given to any criticism levied at the theory of evolution by the wrong group. There is no end of the amount of indignant spleen vented towards the supposed interlopers — pig-ignorant, fundamentalist, pseudo-scientific nuts — who dare contradict the most important idea in the history of science.

Quite so. He even quotes Richard Dawkins’ famous “ignorant, stupid or insane” remark describing creationists. But be of good cheer, dear reader, because Mr. O’Connell is not discouraged. In fact, he’s been inspired to give us a vast collection creationist clichés. His article could used as source material for a new generation of creationists. He continues:

If there is one certainty in biology, it is the unchanging place of evolution as the center of the study of the “genesis” of life.

And if there is one certainty in creationism, it’s misconceptions like that one. But hang on, O’Connell is just getting started:

So, the centerpiece of a scientific enterprise is unchallengeable, secular dogma? Yes. Why this is so can be answered from several different angles. From the pro-evolutionary side, the reason is it’s the “only game in town” — claiming no other plausible theory exists to explain life’s origins. … This secular religion demands that only measurable or “natural” explanations be examined in the sciences. So, by fiat, God is rejected.

Let’s see … evolution is the only game in town (well, that’s true), and God is rejected? No, not rejected, just devilishly difficult to study in the lab. The next paragraph is even better. We’ll break it into two parts:

Evolution therefore inhabits the enviable place of being a “theory” which brooks no dissent. So, how does this effect the biological sciences? Many negative elements are introduced from the presumption of blind evolution.

Okay, here come those “negative elements”:

First, its assumed the purpose of biology is the furtherance of evolutionary theory; i.e., all scientific research is understood to be designed to prove, not harm, the central tenets of evolution. Second, evolution encourages an ethic of amorality to pervade the sciences which also filters into society. Third, much time, labor and valuable, finite resources have been expended to prop up belief in the unprovable hypothesis — evolution. Fourth, a spirit of censorship has descended over the sciences in protection of the unchallengeable thesis, driving out many religious and independent thinkers.

We aren’t yet 20% into the article. Lordy, there’s so much of this stuff! The next paragraph continues to catalog those “negative elements” caused by “the presumption of blind evolution”:

Fifth, Darwinism helped encourage some of the most morally reprehensible research and activities in history, such as the eugenics movement, and the scientific programs of the Nazis and Russians. Sixth, a reductionist and highly condescending myth is constantly dispensed in all public forums extolling the truth and rightness of evolutionary cant, including all mainstream science shows. Seventh, an incredible opportunity to better understand nature has been lost if evolutionary theory is wrong from the embargoing of advocates. Eighth, as Darwinism is an unprovable hypothesis, biological science itself is built upon wholly non-scientific criteria, which cannot be questioned. Finally, evolution encourages a jaded view of life, as a series of random events that have no meaning or direction, instead of a mystery and a miracle to behold.

We are gasping for breath here. This is an amazing piece of writing, and we’re not 25% into it yet. But we can’t continue to provide excerpts or this post will be far too long. So we’ll just tantalize you with some hints of what lies ahead, to encourage you to read it all for yourself.

He bashes Dawkins some more, then praises Fred Hoyle (famed among creationists because of Hoyle’s fallacy about a tornado in a junkyard), then he adoringly quotes from Discoveroid Jonathan Wells (about whom we wrote The Genius of Jonathan Wells), and then he gushes about scientific frauds.

But wait — there’s a conclusion section. We must share this with you. He says:

So what can be done to improve scientific rectitude and create a more open, and scientific culture? We must acknowledge that “Science” is only the Scientific Method and no one needs special permission to criticize established theories or offer new ones. That is the only way Science itself can evolve.

No problem. We acknowledge that O’Connell doesn’t need our permission. Let’s read on:

Overall, a sense of modesty towards dissent should be highly encouraged in the sciences instead of fury when one’s icons are pulled down.

Modesty is our middle name. And here’s the final line:

After all, some of today’s “heretics” will evolve into tomorrow’s visionary geniuses.

There you are, dear reader. Our Canadian readers can be proud. The very best creationist writing can be found in Canada Free Press.

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

Looking Ahead: The Controversy In 2013

It has become a tradition around here that as each year comes to a close, we discuss what the new year will be like in The Controversy between evolution and creationism. To keep everything in perspective, remember that this is a tiny but prominent part of a greater struggle. Creationism by itself is goofy and insignificant, but it’s the vehicle chosen by the Enlightenment’s enemies — Western Civilization’s counter-revolutionaries (see The Infinite Evil of Creationism).

Some of this is copied from our year-end posts of earlier years, especially Looking Ahead: The Controversy In 2011, because certain things just don’t change. We have to quote ourselves, just a little bit:

Creationism is being used as the front for a coordinated, multi-pronged assault on every worthy human accomplishment. It provides a handy base of exploitable ignorance, which is manipulated to wage a deliberate and relentless campaign against reason itself — and reason is the fountainhead of everything that makes human life worth living.

Creationists often say that logic and morality are possible only with their worldview, but we know that’s ridiculous. In a universe where Oogity Boogity is the explanation for everything, logic has no place. Reason is the only antidote for the creationists’ madness and the tyranny with which they hope to enforce it, and that’s why they hate reason. When Oogity Boogity is the officially authorized answer to all questions, thinking becomes a crime against the state. In their longed-for theocratic paradise, reason is treason.

Sure, we laugh a lot. Creationists are unintentionally funny, and we don’t want to be grim and grumpy all the time. But with all the laughter to be had by watching the ravings of creationists, and the entertainment we enjoy with our sarcasm and ridicule of their insanity, it’s necessary to remind ourselves that although society may seem stable, it’s always on the brink of falling into the darkness, so that’s really what this is all about. And don’t forget for a moment that the oh-so-holy and moralistic creationists would cheer wildly if you were tied to the stake and torched for heresy. That’s the big picture, and that’s why we’re here.

Now then, what can we expect in the coming year? To begin with, unless there’s an unexpected cutoff in the funding of the Discoveroids — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page — they’ll continue to be the lobbying and public relations engine that drives creationist legislation. We explained all that when we began this blog (see: Enemies of the Enlightenment). The Discoveroids have a large, faith-based network of sympathetic supporters in local school boards and state legislatures around the country, including some members of Congress. They also have an undetermined number of other accomplices in various advocacy groups and in the media. Much of their support network consists of “public interest” groups with the word “Family” in their organization’s name. They’re all fellow travelers and useful idiots who eagerly do the Discoveroids’ bidding.

There will be more creationist legislation to track, as idiotic legislators keep trying to force creationism into the public schools. We already know about bills that are being prepared for the legislatures in Indiana, and Montana, and Texas. We can certainly expect more.

If you need to know the dates of this year’s state legislative sessions, you can refer to this: 2013 Legislative Session Calendar.

One area of activity that does change from year to year is litigation. At the moment, the court case we’re watching is David Coppedge’s suit against his former employer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (part of Caltech), and that’s pretty much over — except for the almost inevitable appeal. There’s also the pending appeal in the Freshwater case; and we don’t know what’s happening with the suit filed by John Oller against the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, which has generated no news at all — it may have been settled for all we know. As long as these cases keep providing income for the lawyers without generating definitive precedents, we can expect to see more.

One thing we know for sure — there will be no scientific breakthroughs that support creationism. As we’ve said before:

Despite all the noise they make, creationists have had no impact on science, industry, agriculture, medicine, academia, or any other rational endeavor. We often fail to notice what doesn’t exist, but we shouldn’t overlook the fact that creationists have failed to accomplish anything of any substance whatsoever. Nor are any such accomplishments likely in the future.

A breakthrough in creation science is about as likely as a breakthrough that supports astrology. It’s just not going to happen. All the action will be legal and political, because despite the endless propaganda, the so-called controversy has nothing to do with science.

As the new year unfolds, remember that what’s at stake here isn’t the theory of evolution. All the babbling about that is merely the confused ravings of misguided simpletons and crazed charlatans. What’s really going on is a conflict of infinitely greater importance. We’re engaged in a war for the preservation of the Enlightenment, which is the ultimate accomplishment of Western Civilization. Even if you’re not personally involved, you’re going to be affected, so you’ve got to be aware of what’s going on.

And don’t imagine that the political battle-line is Republican vs. Democrat. Both political parties are crazed, although in different ways, and neither is a friend of the Enlightenment. If you doubt that, try to imagine Ben Franklin comfortably fitting into either of today’s parties. But that’s beyond the scope of today’s essay.

As The Controversy continues, it will be played out not in science labs, but in courtrooms and legislative chambers — and of course the media. People come and go, code words are revised, and tactics evolve, but the game never really changes. Neither do we.

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

ICR: Science Is Always Changing!

We found a splendid example of the advantage of creation science over plain old yucky science at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in this new article: The Ever-Changing Big Bang Story. It’s by Jake Hebert. Jake is an ICR Research Associate who received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Some say that Christians should re-interpret what Genesis states about the origin of the universe to match the claims of the Big Bang model. But which Big Bang model are they talking about? Several versions have cropped up since Georges Lemaître suggested the idea in 1931. Although these versions all say the universe expanded and cooled over many billions of years, they differ significantly in the details of events.

That’s the big problem with science — it keeps changing to accommodate new evidence. Creation science, on the other hand, is timeless! Jake’s article continues:

In 1979, physicist Alan Guth envisioned a major modification to solve a number of serious difficulties. He posited that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe supposedly underwent an enormous but extremely brief growth spurt called inflation. After this brief inflationary period, the universe continued to expand but at a slower rate. Inflation became an essential part of the Big Bang model.

He’s talking about cosmic inflation. See what we mean? Science is never the same! Skipping some speculation about the multiverse, we come to this:

The current version of the Big Bang model involves a number of quantities (such as “dark energy” and “dark matter”) that earlier versions did not have.

There are good reasons for that, but Jake doesn’t bother with them. It would ruin the narrative. Let’s read on:

Furthermore, the bizarre logical consequences of inflation theory are now leading some theorists to propose another version of the Big Bang called the Ekpyrotic Model. They speculate that the Big Bang was caused by a collision between two 3-D worlds (called “branes”) moving along a fourth hidden dimension.

Ooooooh — this is so confusing! Why would anyone want to abandon the timeless comfort of Genesis?

By the way, the ekpyrotic universe is currently a contender, but it’s a minority view. It’s the latest version of a cyclic model in which the universe oscillates between expansions and contractions. Jake continues:

Is there a lesson here? Secularists have long pressured Christians to compromise with these origins tales, yet the secular theorists themselves eventually abandoned them.

Hey, that’s right! Why abandon Genesis for the latest science, when before you know it, whatever new theory you’ve adopted will soon be abandoned! That’s crazy! Here’s how it ends:

Instead of trusting the changing, fallible stories of sinful men who were not present at creation, how much better it is to trust the written record of the One who knows all things, who never lies, and who was there — creating.

You gotta admit, dear reader — Jake has a good point!

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