We get thousands of letters saying: “Hey, Curmy, you haven’t given us a good vomit opportunity lately. How about it?” We must admit, our readers are correct. Even though we write every day about the madness of creationism, the chance for a really good, let ‘er rip, heavy-duty, all-at-once, mighty heave from way deep-down hasn’t been presented here since Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.
Well, your long wait is over. This one is hot from the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. Their article is Abortion: The Evolution Connection. Just sit back and let ICR’s title sink in for a moment or two.
No, you’re not dreaming and we didn’t make it up as a parody. This really is at ICR’s website. After years of seeing the creationists blame Darwin and his theory for virtually all imaginable things, they’re finally getting around to the topic of abortion. However, we don’t intend for the comments section to degenerate into a battleground about abortion. We’re not writing about that subject — no more than a post about Ray Comfort is about bananas. This is about the mentality of creationists.
ICR’s article has two co-authors. One is Jake Hebert, described at the end as a “Research Associate” for ICR. They say he has a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. The other is somebody named Michael Stamp, an ICR staffer. We’re about to begin, but we caution you to be sure you’re reading this near a bathroom in case you need to get there in a hurry. If that isn’t convenient, then have a bucket close at hand — a big bucket. Now that you’re ready, here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Within a consistent evolutionary worldview, there is no logical basis for moral absolutes. If mankind is truly a cosmic accident, then there is no Creator-God to whom we must give an account, and there is no logical and objective basis for claiming that a given action is morally right or wrong.
When an article begins by declaring that as a premise, and the audience is drooling and nodding in agreement, the authors can say anything thereafter and the audience will agree. Claiming that goodness and morality are found only in the correct religion is no different than making that claim for the correct race, nationality, or economic status. “We’re all good; they’re all bad.” Such thinking is the source of many, perhaps most of the problems in the world. We’ve written several times about Creationism and Morality (that links to a few others on the topic) so all we’ll say here is that AIG’s premise is absolute nonsense. Their article continues:
The recent trial of American abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell dramatically illustrates this deep ethical problem with the evolutionary worldview. Gosnell is charged with killing four newborn infants who had apparently been born alive after surviving his attempted abortions. He is also charged with …
We won’t dwell on the details of the Gosnell case, because you probably already know about it. The only surprising thing here is that this article was written by ICR and not by the Discoveroids — but Klinghoffer will probably get around to it. Let’s read on:
Many of those familiar with this case (including evolutionists) have been horrified by it. But if evolution is true, why is Gosnell’s behavior wrong? Some might argue that his behavior is wrong simply because he broke the law — but then why is breaking the law wrong? On what basis can one claim that any behavior is wrong?
Ah, so that explains why 94.6% of all mass murderers are biologists. What — you say that statistic is wrong? Don’t be so sure. We’ll probably never know, because the Darwinists are in control of the statistics. ICR continues:
The essential question is straightforward: Is human life precious and sacred or not?
We once attempted to answer that question from an evolutionary point of view: In Creationism and the Value of Life we discussed the planet-killing activities of the literal Genesis deity and said:
Although there’s no evidence that we’re the product of any impossible events, each of us is the result of a unique series of natural occurrences. Our existence will never be repeated. We’re irreplaceable. Priceless. This is why — contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists — the theory of evolution places a far higher value on individuals and all of humanity than creationism, according to which we could be wiped out and started up again on a whim.
Here’s more from ICR:
Human life is sacred because humans are made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27). God alone has authority over life because He alone is its Author — this is the objective, logical basis for declaring that Gosnell’s actions are wrong. Human life is sacred in every case simply because God made it so.
Objective? Logical? Creationists use those words, but we don’t think they understand them. One last excerpt:
Evolution denies God’s existence and, in so doing, negates the objective and intrinsic value of human beings. Dr. Gosnell and his like are, in a sense, acting this belief out as they discard the weakest and most helpless human beings.
ICR must be correct. We can’t think of any creationists who have ever behaved immorally. Can you? Okay, that’s it for this post. Now go empty your bucket.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
This strikes me as yet another example of an argument against evolution (note: against evolution, not for anything) which is more like an argument against reproductive biology: See the fallacies of composition and division. After all, it is the individual which is created in the image of God, not the species (or “kind”).
These creationists writers worry about Kermit Gosnell killing four newborns and apparently also an adult. Yes, it is disgusting. Yet what does that amount to, compared to the atrocities committed by the deity these guys see as the firm foundation of all morality?
We have one particularly disgusting story where Yahweh slowly kills the baby of David and Bathsheba because the vengeful deity didn’t like the circumstances surrounding the boy’s conception. You’ll find the details here, with full references:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.no/2010/02/gods-73rd-killing-god-slowly-kills-baby.html
We can also assume that countless little babies and pregnant women died when Yahweh sent the Flood (a very important event in the worldview of many creationists — don’t say it is just a myth, apparently this one event is what geology is all about). How many innocent babies were fried in Sodom and Gomorrah? And I also seem to remember something about every firstborn son in Egypt coming to an untimely end?
Also notice this delightful fragment of Hebrew poetry, directed at the Babylonians, but supposedly inspired by the Holy Spirit: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9, KJV)
Creationists are right to point out that evolution is amoral. The theory of evolution doesn’t tell us more about morality than the law of gravity does. We are talking about impersonal forces and processes here.
However, the deity most creationists would like to point us to has no such excuse.
Neither the ICR’s bible nor the sad results of inept medical care speaks in any way to the subjective or objective morality of the topic of abortion.
So when the ICR inserts the scare word “abortion” into a post, it should be seen for what it really is; an emotional metaphor for the real foundational target of the ICR . Which is an organization committed to a fight against the simple concept of increasing rational human knowledge of the natural world, thru science.
Our Curmudgeon thoughtfully warns us
Good advice!
But perhaps you should have also included a reminder to undertake an electronic ‘sweep’ of the lavatorial facilities to ensure no Creationist Can-Cams were concealed therein…
Unfortunately, I viewed the video you referenced of BF interviewing Doctor Georgia Perdumb, Ph.D. I was moved to completely empty the contents of my stomach halfway through that clown-fest, thereby making it impossible to produce any vomit after reading your present article. I’ll try re-reading it after dinner.
Creationists never miss an opportunity to blame “evolutionists”, no matter their faith, for whatever horrors occur in the world. I think, to some degree, they actually believe this – they are not trying to be offensive.
Ed is right. Here in Norway (where our few creationists are all but ignored by mainstream culture) one Peder Tyvand wrote a book four years ago where he called attention to the sad story of Austrian Josef Fritzl.
For years, Fritzl kept his daughter imprisoned as a sex slave in his basement, and even had several children with her. (Always weird when your dad and your granddad are the same person.) This was all Darwin’s fault, of course.
How so? Well, according to Peder Tyvand, evolutionists ought to praise Josef Fritzl because he had successfully passed on his genes! That is what evolution is all about, right? There you see: Whereever Darwin’s unwholesome theory gains acceptance, people start keeping their daughters as sex slaves in the basement!
If, unlike Fritzl, they make sure that any resulting pregnancies are terminated, that would presumably only add insult to injury from the creationist perspective.
Ed says: ” I think, to some degree, they [creationists] actually believe this – they are not trying to be offensive.”
How can anyone make a claim that creationists are not trying to be offensive, when the plainly stated and collective plan of fully adult creationists is to exploit the vulnerable minds of an entire generation of school children? They make toilet cams look like a whoopee cushion joke by comparison.
I didn’t say they weren’t offensive, just that they believe in their worldview so much that they think they are telling the truth.
It seems to me that committed creationists are impervious to rational argument, facts, evidence, etc. It’s not that they shut it out, it’s that they really, honestly, don’t believe it. They have somehow wired their brains to view a particular set of beliefs as reality, and any contrary experience or evidence is written off as either simply wrong or a deliberate falsehood perpetrated by the devil.
Creationists are no different in that respect that conspiracy theorists – for example, those that deny the moon landing, or that Obama was born in Hawaii, or that 911 was a terrorist attack. I don’t know the psychology behind it, but it appears that such beliefs are emotionally based, and that has something to do with how firmly people adhere to the beliefs and how real they are to them. Beliefs that are based on evidence and logic are fairly simple to revise when new evidence presents itself. However, creationists did not come to their beliefs through logic, although they might view themselves as logical people, and so they cannot change their beliefs when presented with a logical argument.
Of course, I could be wrong. (Something no creationist will ever say.)
“Ah, so that explains why 94.6% of all mass murderers are biologists. What — you say that statistic is wrong? Don’t be so sure. We’ll probably never know, because the Darwinists are in control of the statistics.”
Brilliant! I like your style. I’m a Christian whose views are despised by young-earth creationists, so I think we might have some common ground. If you haven’t seen it already, you’ll have to check out AiG’s post last week titled “Intolerant Atheists Viciously Attack Christian School” if you need another opportunity to purge your digestive system.
Here’s my response: http://www.godofevolution.com/intolerant-yec-organization-viciously-attacks-reasonable-public-policy/