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

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #290: Northern Delight

  1. I’m Canadian living north of Toronto and Canada Free Press is an embarrassment. They do attract the wing-nuts and no respectable journalist would be caught dead writing for them. You wonder where the funds come from to keep this rag in business. Any guesses?

  2. I live in alberta and I would like to guess where the funding comes from. Would the answer be “from the really far right wing of the Wild Rose Party”?

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    I skipped the long article, and read the comments. One of the commenters seems to think all the answers are at creation.com.

  4. Charles Deetz said: “I skipped the long article”

    You didn’t miss anything. It’s as SC said. This is nothing more than a rehash of every argument against evolution ever made. As John Scalzi, the writer, once said, “It’s not TL:DR; it’s WS;SR (writing sucks; stopped reading)”. On the insanity and inanity in one web page! What more could you ask for for an after-Xmas present?

  5. Christine Janis

    The scariest comment among the letters:

    We Are Winning Our Great Country Back!!!!

  6. retiredsciguy

    Well, what can you expect when objective observation contradicts religious dogma? The religion is held to be inerrant; therefore, all the world’s scientists must either be in error or are lying.

    The fundamentalist dare not ever consider the possibility that evolution is correct lest his soul be forever condemned to Hell. Rational argument can only be received by a rational mind.

  7. Jim Thomerson

    I used to be a Natural Selection Fundamentalist. However, a student and I did a study of variation in the caudal skeleton of a darter which swims mostly with its pectoral fins. We found that some 30% of the skeletons were ‘abnormal’. When I reread what I had written about this in the Discussion section, I realized I was arguing for relaxed selection where it did not really matter. I was mildly shocked. Now I even accept the idea of neutral selection. Who says we evolutionists cannot evolve?