Category Archives: Intelligent Design

Evolution — The Greatest Hoax of All Time

We’re warning you right up front: this one comes from RenewAmerica, where Ellis Washington’s columns have been appearing ever since he stopped writing for WorldNetDaily for reasons unknown to us.

What we found there today is titled Evolution’s Achilles’ heels — top scientists scrutinize the weakness and falsehoods of a generation of spurious science. Achilles’ heels? Achilles only had one vulnerable heel. Ignoring that, if that, if the title sounds crazy otherwise, wait ’til you see what the article says. It’s written by a preacher named Michael Bresciani, about whom we’re told: “Rev. Michael Bresciani is a Christian author and a columnist for several online sites and magazines.”

We wrote once before about one of his articles — see Creationist Wisdom #397: Hambo Won the Debate. Here are some excerpts from his latest, with bold font added by us:

After the great Scopes Monkey trial circa 1925 the world eased back and decided that scientists and forensics would continue to carry the ball about origins, while those who thought the Bible was true would be sent to the back of the room where the dummies sit. Real Christianity never fosters stupidity and soon those who believed the Bible started to use the empirical methods of the scientists to uncover amazing truths about origins that early forensics either overlooked or were not willing to see.

Bible believers used the scientific method after the Scopes trial? BWAHAHAHAHA!. Then the rev says:

The result of years of ‘creation science’ has accumulated since 1925, but it has run head on directly into what is today called – political correctness. PC is the equivalent of something better known as – ‘don’t confuse me with the facts.’

Yes, quite a pile of creation science has accumulated. Let’s read on:

There are a lot of factors that fuel the present world view of evolution. Beyond peer acceptance is money. … Money may still be what makes the world go around, but it is also still the best way to bring brilliant minds to a complete stop.

The only thing holding creation science back is a lack of funding. Hey, if creationists get an ark-load of funding, then their brilliant minds may stop too. This is confusing, but the rev continues:

The pathology of ‘evolutionary science’ is not where the problem is found, but it is the philosophy of evolutionary science that is flawed right out of the gate and the suspect science itself stumbles in the long run. Regardless of specious theories, spurious explanations, missing evidence and pure guesswork; at the heart of the evolutionary model is a blaringly simple error that PC keeps hidden from view – at all cost.

Yes, we must suppress The Truth at all cost. Here’s more:

When anyone, scientist or ordinary lay person make [sic] statements about what took place before the dawn of man and recorded history, some of it allegedly going back over 450 billion years, they have left forensic science behind and crossed into the realm known as – prior philosophic postulation.

Evolutionists talk about what was going on “450 billion years” in the past! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And we know all about “prior philosophic postulation” — that’s what ol’ Hambo’s outfit talks about as the “secularists” pre-supposition that the laws of nature were the same in the past as now, rather than being wildly different to accommodate the creation account in Genesis.

We’ll skip some silliness about bovine flatulence — although it somehow seems relevant. Then we’re told:

If conclusions are formulated by a predetermined belief that creation could not have an intelligent designer – that is prejudice – not science.

The rev is oblivious to the fact that if he does away with predetermined belief, he has completely dismissed creation science. Moving along:

There are literally reams of arguments that evolutionists should never use, but there are at least two great philosophical points that no evolutionist has yet been able to answer. … Without elaboration they are

1. The (millions or billions) of missing links.

2. The lack of an explanation concerning the origins of the gases and or particulates that went into the ‘big bang’ – who or what created them?

Aha — the rev has spotted the two biggest weaknesses in the theory of evolution! But wait — he has even more:

In order to thrive the evolutionary model depends on a scientific view that is supposed to answer the two greatest questions that mankind has ever asked. First, is the question of origins – where did the planet and the life on it come from or originate? Second, is the question of destinations – where is it all leading and what will be the future of mankind.

Darwin never answered those questions! Another excerpt:

The element that evolution dismisses is the idea of intelligent design. If God is responsible for everything then evolution is finished out of the gate. It becomes the greatest hoax of all time rather than the theological or the scientific explanation of origins.

We’re barely halfway through the rev’s essay, but this is where we’re going to quit. We can’t take any more. The rest of it is a massive sales pitch for a video from something called “Creation Ministries International.” If you have more endurance than we do, we urge you to click over to RenewAmerica and read it all. Then tell us if we left anything out that was worth mentioning.

Copyright © 2014. 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

Bobby Jindal: “Obama Is a Science Denier”

Buffoon Award

We haven’t had much to say lately about Louisiana’s creationist governor Bobby Jindal, also known as Bobby Jindal, the Exorcist. As you may recall, Jindal’s gyrations made him our sixth Buffoon Award Winner.

The last time we wrote about him was after he flat-out admitted that the Louisiana Science Education Act permits teaching creationism, and the Discovery Institute totally abandoned him (see Discoveroids: “Bobby Jindal? Who’s He?”).

Jindal has now earned his way back into our humble blog. In the Daily Reporter of Greenfield, Indiana, we found this: Louisiana governor says Obama administration hasn’t done enough to harness energy potential.

It’s not the headline that drew us to this story. It’s understandable that Jindal is a spokesman for the energy industry, because that’s a major factor in Louisiana, and of course the Obama administration is in bed with the environmentalists. We won’t bother with those issues. But take a look at the story’s opening paragraph. The bold font was added by us:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s administration has become “science deniers,” failing to do enough to harness the nation’s energy potential.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Can anything else in the article even come close to that? Well, somewhat. Jindal is quoted as saying this:

The reality is right now we’ve got an administration, the Obama administration, that are science deniers when it comes to harnessing America’s energy resources and potential to create good paying jobs.”

Not surprising. Jindal is a politician, so he’s as much a pawn of the energy industry as he is of the creationists. The amazing thing is that he seems unaware of the inconsistencies. Here’s one more excerpt, to give you something else to think about:

The 43-year-old governor and former congressman has sought to carve out a role as a leading policy mind as he considers a presidential campaign in 2016. Jindal told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that there was “no reason to be coy” and he would make a decision on whether to seek the White House after the November midterm elections.

By the way, there are crazed science deniers in the leadership of both parties, but they deny different aspects of science in order to advance their political goals. See Is Your Political Party Really Pro-Science? It’s easy for your Curmudgeon to say that, because our viewpoint is cosmic. But from a provincial, partisan viewpoint (which, alas, is not uncommon among scientists), each party insults the other with the label of science-denier. In truth, both parties are run and supported by fools.

Copyright © 2014. 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

Vomit Opportunity from Answers in Genesis


We keep getting letters saying: “Hey, Curmy, you haven’t given us a good vomit opportunity lately. How about it?” That’s unfair criticism. We had one a few months ago — see Massive Morning Vomit Opportunity.

But if you’re looking for a really good, let ‘er rip, heavy-duty, all-at-once, mighty heave from way down deep, then you’re right. We haven’t had one of those since Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.

All right, Vomiteers, we’ve found what you’re looking for. It’s from Georgia Purdom, who received a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She’s a creation scientist on the staff of Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. Here’s her bio page at AIG’s website — Dr. Georgia Purdom.

Georgia’s new essay, which begins with a great photo of her, is “Professionally Unethical” to Confuse Observational and Historical Science. Whoa — professionally unethical? This is serious stuff! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A few weeks ago one of our staff members sent me an email reply she received from a scientist she had contacted. She had asked him for permission to use a photo he had taken for one of our publications. Here was his reply:

[The alleged reply:] Although I do license my images to some organizations, I will have to politely decline your request. As a scientist and in particular as a biologist, it would be professionally unethical to have my name associated with an organization that is so vehemently anti-science. The stance against evolution is particularly appalling: for me to support this stand would be like asking a physicist to deny gravity, for a chemist to not believe in atoms, or for a mathematician to disavow integers. Needless to say, these are all absurd. And as a further note, if I could in fact provide strong evidence to counter our understanding of evolution, this would make my career as a scientist. But as with searching for evidence that atoms don’t exist, this would be a profound waste of time.

Nice reply! But Georgia found it not only offensive, it was also “professionally unethical.” Here’s what she says:

As one of several scientists working for AiG, I always chuckle when people claim we are “anti-science.” Their accusation stems from the fact that they fail to define science properly. There are two categories of science: observational/experimental and historical/origins.

We’ve seen that claim dozens of times from AIG. They don’t like science that discovers things in the past because such discoveries always make Genesis look ridiculous. We’ve discussed their bizarre dichotomy in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, so we won’t waste any time on it.

However, we’re inspired to invent a dichotomy of our own. Did you realize that there is more than one human species living on this planet? You know about Homo sapiens, which means “wise (or reasoning) man.” Those wretched, hell-bound evolutionists claim that H. sapiens is the only human species now alive, but they’re wrong. There’s another human species, dear reader — Homo insipiens, or foolish man. Virtually all creationists are of this other species, and your Curmudgeon now declares that it is professionally unethical to deny it. Okay, back to Georgia’s essay:

This scientist [whose reply Georgia quoted] is clearly mixing the two types of science and what he is actually opposed to is using the truth of God’s Word as a starting point for knowing about the past instead of his own ideas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:

Although he claims that finding “evidence” to counter evolution would make his career as a scientist, it would actually end it, at least as far as the secular world is concerned. Over and over and over again the evidence has been clearly shown to be absolutely consistent with and to confirm the historical science based on God’s Word.

Throwing up yet? Of course you are. And we’re not finished. Ignoring Georgia’s link to an AIG article about “correct scientific predictions” made with creation science, she says:

Yet when scientists such as myself attempt to publish such information in secular scientific journals, speak at secular scientific conferences, or get jobs at secular universities, we are typically prohibited not because of the observational science we have accomplished but because it supports and confirms the historical science based on God’s Word. (Fortunately, creation scientists do have places to publish peer-reviewed scientific research like the Answers Research Journal and others.)

It must be deeply satisfying to be published in Hambo’s own “peer-reviewed” journal. At the end, Georgia refers us to a video of the debate between ol’ Hambo and Bill Nye, and that’s all she has to say. But it was enough for our purposes. You wanted a vomit opportunity, and we gave you one. We are pleased to have provided this service.

Copyright © 2014. 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

Creationism’s Biggest Nightmare

One of the creationists’ “best” arguments against the theory of evolution is that it has no answer to the question of how life began. Their argument is a classic example of a claim based on the God of the gaps fallacy, which we sometimes simplify like this:

Ignorance of X is evidence of Y.

In other words, if something isn’t yet fully understood, then the answer must be … Oogity Boogity! The problem with such an argument is that, well, it’s worthless. The theists’ claim about a miraculous creation may indeed be a true one. Nobody knows, because they have no evidence, but no one can disprove it. Such is the nature of theology. Then why don’t creationists just say that they choose to believe it, and let it go with that? Why do they claim that they have “proof,” when it’s so obvious that they have none?

We don’t know why they behave as they do. For a good example of such behavior, see Klinghoffer Defends the God of the Gaps. The best part of that post is our quote from Albert Einstein, taken from Science and Religion, which we’ll repeat here:

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.

All we can do is point out that, one by one, each of the creationists’ claims is being eroded by scientific discoveries. What probably frightens them most (other than the discovery of life on some other planet) is an undeniable demonstration that life can come into existence by natural means. And that demonstration is coming closer.

If you have three minutes to spare, take a look at the video at the top of this post. It’s about the work of Georgia Tech biochemist Nicholas Hud and his team at the Center for Chemical Evolution.

Ultimately, creationism’s biggest nightmare is knowledge. That’s why they hate science.

Copyright © 2014. 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