This is where we find out if you’ve got what it takes. Do you have the courage to put your thinking out there for all to see? You know what we’re getting at, don’t you?
Yes, it’s time, dear reader, for another Creative Challenge. But first, you need to be stimulated. Therefore, we remind you of all the intellectual thrills we’ve provided in the past. Our earlier contests were: #1 (Creationism is to evolution as ___ is to ____), followed by #2 (The typical Discoveroid’s next job will be _____), and then #3 (The Discoveroids are the dregs of _____), and then #4 (The creationists’ biggest lie is _____), and then #5 (Can _____ be defended using only scientific terms?, and then #6 (What shall we call a creationist toilet camera?), and then #7 (Credible evidence for the intelligent designer’s existence would be: ____), and then #8 (Devise an acronym — the individual letters of which are the initial letters of words that disparage the Discoveroids’ theory), and then #9 (The only thing less interesting than news of the Discoveroids’ Censor of the Year is ____), and then #10 (The expression that best describes the Discoveroids or their “science” or their methods is _____ ), and most recently #11 (X and Y are related phenomena. Therefore _______).
Today’s challenge is inspired by the totality of our experience documenting and ridiculing creationism in all its forms — young Earth, old Earth, total Genesis, modified Genesis, no Genesis, etc. We have often read something written by a creationist and thought to ourselves: Could anything be more obviously wrong than this? For example, consider the Discoveroids’ definition of intelligent design: Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
That’s the setup for today’s challenge, dear reader. Let’s see if you can come up with something better (i.e., dumber) than that. We’re looking for something so contrary to reality, so lacking in evidence, and so absolutely untestable that only the brain-dead would even consider it, let alone accept it.
The form of the challenge is that in one sentence, you must tell us:
A successful entry should be self-explanatory, but it’s quite all right to elaborate on your proposals. To get your creative juices flowing, we’ll offer one example of something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism: Experience teaches us that everyone is happiest if he isn’t allowed to think.
You know the rules: You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.
Your Curmudgeon will decide if there’s a winner, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
… Trickle Down Economics. If we give rich people more money, eventually they will let some of it slip through their fingers and it will come to us!
Steve Ruis, no, that won’t do at all. The term “Trickle Down Economics” was originally a term of derision to criticize foreign aid, which was being promoted by Eisenhower to bribe various third world governments to be on our side rather than the Russians. The transparently silly justification for such “aid” was that after we gave it to the dictator, it would somehow flow from the government to the people, and that was rightly criticized as “trickle down economics.” But it was good geopolitics.
Nowadays, some on the left think it’s such a handy and time-honored phrase that they use it to criticize anyone or any company that has been legitimately successful. So, well, now that I think about it, maybe you have an unintended good entry there. Criticizing, say, Apple Computer as an example of “trickle down economics” does indeed qualify.
the assumption that the amount of natural sources (like water and space) is infinite. Still the economic policy of all western countries is based upon it. It goes back to Adam Smith.
the idea that you can build a society without violence by means of a violent revolution. Because of this Marx kicked Bakunin out of the First Communist International.
the idea that religious leaders, when having total power, won’t get corrupt because they obey god’s will.
Life can only exist on Earth.
The obvious answer is ID.
Now cue the knee-jerk “But ID is creationism!” To which I answer, “yes ID is a subset of creationism as critics define it, which is any strategy to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution so that most of the scammed prefer some form of oogity boogity.” But it is not what most people-on-the-street think creationism is, which is “honest belief in literal Genesis.” So ID peddlers constantly bait their critics by exploiting the different definitions.
Creationism, as most people define it may be illogical and contrary to reality, but no more than belief in fairy tales, which at least have allegorical value. Strategies to promote unreasonable doubt of evolution that began as “scientific” creationism, however, are as illogical and contrary to reality as anything can get, and ID, with its “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” policy, is the culmination of that trend. Or as it has been said, creationism is wrong, but ID is “not even wrong.”
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is our Curmudgeon’s bizarre delusion that Olivia would even look twice at him.
Color breathing.
(Yes, that is a thing.)
@Garnetstar:
Unless “color breathing” bases all of its claims on perceived “weaknesses” or regular breathing, creationism, as critics define it, is still more illogical and contrary to reality.
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is the notion that anything could be more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism.
Inspired by Frank J, was about to suggest:
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is teach the controversy (in K-!2)
But then I realized that this is the product of ID. After mulling this over, I came to realize that the business of ID to perfect ever better answers to Creative Challenge #12. And how can we amateurs hope to compete with the professionals?
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is holding the belief that any nation so ignorant and so dedicated, can long endure.
[With apologies to A. Lincoln]
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is…
• Ray Bananaman Comfort.
• the people who believe it.
• unthinkable.
• teaching it as fact to children.
• six-day creationism.
• baking your head in a microwave oven.
• expecting its proponents to be open to logic and reality.
• thinking The Controversy is about worldviews rather than about political power.
• thinking that a fish needs a bicycle.
• saying that atheism is a religion.
(Curmy, “… documenting and ridiculing creationism in all
it’sits forms …”)Con-Tester says:
Aaaargh!! The apostrophe demon got me again!
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is agreeing to debate creationists…
Con-Tester: “• six-day creationism.”
But six-day creationism “is” creationism, so your entry is just as disqualified as mine. 😉
Seriously, if anything, six-day creationism is one of the more honest forms of creationism (OEC is probably the most, ID is definitely the least). Those who claim that it’s true usually (eventually) admit that the evidence doesn’t support it, at least not yet. So, unless they are committed activists like Ham, they use a little, if clumsy logic, and have enough connection to reality to admit that the evidence is not there.
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is _______.
In other words, the challenge itself is the winning answer — nothing (blank) is more illogical than creationism.
Con-Tester: “• teaching it as fact to children.”
Not only illogical, but also child abuse.
Oops. I beseech the Mysterious Hand to turn off the italics. Thank you, oh Great Curmudgeon.
[*Voice from above*] I stretched forth my mighty hand and behold! It is done.
“Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is”
#10 Rick Perry
#9 Teaching a geology course at Liberty University
#8 Explaining the scientific method to Ken Ham
#7 Liberia
#6 The Gary Busey Motorcycle Safety Academy
#5 Hukd on Fonics
#4 chitlins
#3 Goose hunting with Dick Cheney ?
#2 the Seattle Chamber of Commerce
and the #1 thing more contrary to reality than creationism
#1 Mardi Gras Day on Bourbon Street
Homeopathy.
Side comment re: Intelligent Design. The next time an IDer starts on me, I’ll just say, “So you believe in Intelligent Design?”
They’ll say, “Yes.”
And I’ll say, “Fine. Explain circumcision.”
Quitting your job and selling your house because some television preacher announced that the rapture will take place next Tuesday.
retiredsciguy says:
corollarry:
Since Creationites live in a dualistic world where every statement must be interpreted as logical/illogical, black/white, true/false, or Satanic/godly, it follows that not only is “nothing more illogical than creationsm“, but a truly just god would judge Creationites thus:
[with apologies to Michael Wigglesworth]
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is believing you can survive on the intake of air alone.
@Lurker111
“Explain Intelligent Design without mentioning evolution.”
Why stop at just creationism?
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is the entire concept of invoking a deity as an “explanation” of everything not understood.
As Europe has shown us, austerity measures are the best way to get out of a recession.
or
As Reagan demonstrated, in an economic system promoted not by Eisenhower (except in the Ken Ham version of history) but by Reagan, trickle-down economics is the best way to benefit the middle class.
Fan death (Wikipedia link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
That Oogity Boogity exists to create in the first place.
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is professional wrestling!
Con-Tester: “• teaching it as fact to children.”
retitedsciguy: “Not only illogical, but also child abuse.”
I hate to make a fun thread serious again, but I must again comment on the “it,” especially since everyone is. like clockwork, getting obsessed with religion again (sometimes I feel like the only “true atheist” even though I’m not an atheist). Anyway, if “it” means “Genesis as fact,” it’s no more child abuse that telling them about flying reindeer. I survived both unscathed, and like many (most) students I was “reading between the lines” by 6th grade. If anything, learning that “kind” of creationism first make me better appreciate evolution.
What is child abuse is misrepresenting evolution and the nature of science – remember the ID scam makes no mention of Genesis, God, and in recent years not even design – and especially the censoring of the refutations of those long-discredited anti- evolution sound bites. And demanding those lies in public schools is also taxpayer abuse.
TomS: “Explain Intelligent Design without mentioning evolution.”
Actually that would be logical, which is why no ID peddler would be caught dead doing it. As you know, and as they insist, their latest scam (that which would be taught if teachers actually “read the memo,” unlike Buckingham, Bonsell and Freshwater) teaches only evolution, not even ID. But of course that’s a half-truth, which is the most despicable form of a lie. They “teach” evolution only to misrepresent it and promote unreasonable doubt. They figure, much more shrewdly than the Biblical clowns, that students will infer the “alternative” and never be aware of its fatal weaknesses and contradictions.
retiredcsciguy: “Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is the entire concept of invoking a deity as an ‘explanation’ of everything not understood.”
How can it be more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism when it “is” creationism? 🙂 Word games aside, unfortunately that makes us just as illogical and contrary to reality as they are, when we miss the opportunity to reply to that claim with “OK, then tell us exactly what your deity (or designer) did, where, when, and how.” It’s fascinating what happens on the rare occasions that we don’t miss that opportunity. Some willingly answer, with everything from “all kinds popped up in 6 days ~6000 years ago” to “I guess it’s something like evolution, but I hear that it has gaps.” But mostly, and increasingly, one gets pathetic evasion, especially from those who are partly or completely in on the scam. If people on the street would get to hear each others’ answers, and evasiveness, the poll numbers will change in our direction. Not overnight of course, but irreversibly, as the public becomes gradually aware which side is honest, and which side is playing dirty.
I hereby rule that I’m allowed to enter the contest, so I’ll toss this in. Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is … spending millions of dollars a year for twenty years to publicize the notion that your viewpoint is being suppressed.
Why did I not think of this before?:
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is replying to a creationist’s bogus charge of “Darwinist” “censorship” by merely showing that it’s not true, while squandering that perfect opportunity to show which side is really promoting censorship.
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is…
• the belief that five minutes with Google trumps the consensus of, and dedicated lifetimes of work by, hundreds of thousands of scientific experts.
• insisting that there’s a conspiracy that aims to suppress The Trvth©™.
@Con-Tester:
I find your wording interesting, particularly how, in the first point you say “the “belief” but in the 2nd you say “insisting” (suggesting that the insister may or may nor personally believe – as in “protesting too much”).
For the first, unfortunately probably more people believe that than believe any form of creationism. Certainly much more than the 10-20% that are strict YECs. A few years ago I googled “Acai berry scam,” and was shocked that nearly every article that used those exact words was from someone selling it! That chutzpah rivals Dembski’s!
Moral of story: Never underestimate the deviousness of a snake oil peddler. And never assume that they actually use the product they sell. Otherwise that’s being illogical and contrary to reality.
@Frank: “since everyone is. like clockwork, getting obsessed with religion again (sometimes I feel like the only “true atheist”)”
Please tell me, where on this page do I show my obsession with religion? Looks like you’re suffering from confirmation bias. Note: I’m a 7 on the scale of Dawkins.
For the rest I agree with you. If the IDiots and other creacrappers were honest and serious about “teaching the Controversy” I would actually support them. My son went three years to a catholic school and three years to an islamic one. A year after he was an atheist. He always has known I was one, but before he asked me I never told him much about it. “Teaching the Controversy”, if done properly, is a good opportunity to explain the scientific method.
This is more or less what happens in The Netherlands. Christian schools, including orthodox ones, are largely paid for by government, to the horror of several Americans. However that means that Dutch government is also able to force teaching Evolution Theory. As a result it is widely accepted – even among fundies.
Off topic, but I don’t know if Curmy’s email is functioning: an alert to this item in today’s Observer (UK): Homo floresiensis: scientists clash over claims ‘hobbit man’ was modern human with Down’s syndrome. Article suggests PNAS has been sloppy in publishing and short-circuited peer-review–and that usually gets the Discoveroids all tumescent and frisky with arousal–but get this: the trouble-maker this time appears to be Kenneth Hsu, descrbed as “an 89-year-old hydrologist who has absolutely no expertise in the subject” and
Will the Discoveroids hoot and holler about ‘the controversy’ here–or try and bury the fuss as it implicates one of ‘their own’?
@Frank J: The first point describes a foundational belief in the sense that it rarely is expressly articulated. That is, any committed creationist/evolution-denier, whether genuinely deluded or scammer, who earnestly and honestly faced a clear and simple statement of his/her underlying belief that five minutes with Google can undo thousands of man-decades of study and consilience would no doubt soon see the extreme conceit of their position — and then fabricate more fictions to obscure it, maybe by citing the DI, AiG, ICR, etc., who supply the cattle prods and cowhands that herd the unwitting masses in the desired direction.
The second point concerns a claim that is needed to sustain creationism/evolution-denial, one that is often forcefully articulated. If evolution is fatally flawed and scientists are clever people, the “reasoning” goes, then the only way they can sustain the Big Lie of evolution is by way of conspiracy. If there’s no such conspiracy then either all of those scientists are blind fools or evolution is true. Positing a conspiracy is the most attractive of the available options because it also succeeds in poisoning the well. Insisting there’s a conspiracy is thus one of the “tangled webs” required to support the whole fraudulent tapestry.
@Con-Tester:
No disagreement there. In fact you’re approaching the ultimate irony of this thread. Which is that there’s almost nothing less illogical and contrary to reality than creationism. That is, if one’s goal is fool the public, whether driven by greed, ego, or a genuine fear that the “masses” would behave as if all permitted if they knew the truth about evolution.
And not just any “creationism” but how strategy evolved over the past ~150 years, which is especially clear in hindsight: First, it was an honest belief that reluctantly kept conceding the chronology (if not the “kinds”) to science, then it became full-blown pseudoscience, cleverly attempting to salvage the original timeline (if not the geocentrism of flat-earthism) with bogus “flood geology,” “instant starlight” cosmology, etc. Then the, ahem, logical conclusion: A constant retreat to “don’t ask, don’t tell” when faced with the very inconvenient fact that only ~10% of the public would buy the whole young-earth and “kinds” nonsense – if they gave it 5 minutes’ thought. Of course few ever do, and few of us ever bother helping them. But information travels faster in the Internet age, and it’s no coincidence that the ID scam was concurrent with it.
And in fact, your #2 is another “logical” conclusion to the evolution of the scam in the face of (1) extremely uncooperative evidence, and (2) a public that is much more likely to buy a juicy conspiracy (of geeky scientists, no less) than young-earth and “kinds.”
mnbo: “Please tell me, where on this page do I show my obsession…”
“Everyone” was not intended to be literal. I will be more careful to look for, and acknowledge, when one avoids tangenting onto religion.
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is _______. Simply speaking of religious beliefs, I submit: reincarnation, resurrection, an immortal soul.
Megalonyx Notes: “Article suggests PNAS has been sloppy in publishing and short-circuited peer-review–and that usually gets the Discoveroids all tumescent and frisky with arousal–but get this: the trouble-maker this time appears to be Kenneth Hsu, described as “an 89-year-old hydrologist who has absolutely no expertise in the subject”
[bold added]
An eighty-nine year old hydrologist is causing this PNAS snafu? Hmm. Henry M Morris, a founder of Flood Geology and the ICR, had a noted career as a university hydraulic engineer.
So at age 89 Hsu is only about 7 years junior to the demised Henry M, who only tipped over 8 years ago at age 87.
Curious to speculate whether these two were colleagues or otherwise crossed paths during Morris’ lifetime. Or maybe Hsu is somehow channeling Morris from the dark beyond?
…though “almost everyone” would have been fairly accurate…
Biologist: “Simply speaking of religious beliefs, I submit: reincarnation, resurrection, an immortal soul.”
If that’s the case, then, you’re essentially admitting that many self-described “evolutionists” (most of the nonscientists and a large majority of scientists), are more illogical and contrary to reality than creationists! Ken Miller, one of the most prominent critics of creationism for 33+ years, probably believes all 3. But I think he’d also admit that there’s no evidence of them, and that all 3 are unfalsifiable anyway.
See the trap we’re falling into? There are all sorts of irrational beliefs. Mine include being unable to eat something that looks like it looked like when it was alive – unless it has chloroplasts. The problem with creationism is not that it – or the belief of it, or the apparent believers – are illogical or contrary to reality – or that teaching it in public schools violates the Establishment Clause. But rather that it’s a scam.
Ceteris Paribus: “Or maybe Hsu is somehow channeling Morris from the dark beyond?”
There’s an easy test for that. If any of his writings question the ages of the fossils and specifically to suggest “younger,” then there’s a good case for a connection with Morris, if not necessarily “channeling” (isn’t that more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism anyway? ;-))
More likely I expect some connection to Sternberg. You might recall his clever contention, from before his “peer review” scandal with Meyer, that his “theory” was “perpendicular” to the creationism-evolution debate. Which he claimed freed him up to have intelligent discussions with both. Of course he conveniently left out the part about how it frees him up to whine incessantly about one, while giving the other a free pass.
A late entry:
Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is the WordPress Beep Beep Boop editor.
If you go to Dashboard / Posts / Add New you access the old editor. At least, that works for me!
Megalonyx offers: “Something even more illogical and contrary to reality than creationism is the WordPress Beep Beep Boop editor.”
That’s a good one, but I can’t award the prize for emotional reasons.
But could you award the prize through emotional blackmail?
realthog says: “If you go to Dashboard / Posts / Add New you access the old editor. At least, that works for me!”
Yes, it’s still there. But it may not be available much longer. I tried to post this morning using Beep Beep Boop, to see if I could live with it when that’s all we have. Total failure. Ghastly experience.