Rev. David Rives — God and the Space Race

The technicians who keep things running here haven’t yet finished installing a replacement Retard-o-tron™, but even without it we managed to find the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. It’s a featured article in WorldNetDaily — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

WND’s headline is Amid America’s space race, God appears. That’s quite a headline! We had to see this one.

The title of the video is Walking on the Moon. The rev spends most of the video’s precious time retelling the history of the Space Race between the US and the old USSR. We assume that you know all about that, but it’s good to hear it from the perspective of a holy man like the rev.

Then, right near the end of the video’s two minutes, the rev reveals the startling news. We won’t ruin things for you by telling you here what this is all about, but it involves Wernher von Braun. What a career that guy had — from launching V-2 rockets at London, to launching manned missions to the Moon, and then — the crowning achievement — he’s quoted by Rev Rives.

As we’ve done before with the rev’s videos, please feel free to use the comments section as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, now go to it.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #330: Proof of God

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Current of Galloway Township, New Jersey. The letter is titled Science attests to God’s reality. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

This is in response to a letter in the May 9 edition from a writer who groused that we should get rid of all our “superstitions” and “baloney beliefs” – which is how he defined belief in God.

We can’t find that earlier letter, but it doesn’t matter. What follows are five numbered paragraphs presenting the letter-writer’s evidence for the existence of God. Hey — he’s got five proofs? This man is a modern day Thomas Aquinas. We realize that this isn’t, strictly speaking, a letter about creationism, but he mentions the Big Bang and DNA, so it’s close. Okay, let’s begin reading the five scientific proofs:

1) Scientific research has proved that the universe had a definite beginning. Science has also proved that every effect must have a cause greater than itself. Thus, something greater than the universe that pre-existed it must have caused it to exist.

We’re confused. Newton’s third law of motion speaks of equal and opposite reactions. We’d like a little more information about the proof that causes must be greater than their effects, but we’re not going to get it here. Let’s read on:

2) Science has proved that the simple cannot create the complex, something impersonal cannot generate something personal, and something nonrational cannot generate something rational. Intelligence must also be generated by previously existing intelligence. Thus, the universe must have been created by something incredibly complex, personal, rational and intelligent.

We’re not familiar with those propositions either. But if he’s got the proof, then his conclusion makes sense. The letter continues:

3) Science has proved that life can only come from previously existing life (“Life begets life”).

That’s probably a reference to the bogus Law of Biogenesis attributed to Pasteur. See Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Here’s more:

4) The genes and DNA of living things contain a huge amount of nonphysical information that determines their every physical detail. Such information could only be generated by a supremely intelligent, rational, ordered mind.

Ah yes, the spiritual component of DNA. Here comes scientific proof number 5:

5) The testimony of the 66 separate historical books of the Bible attest to God’s reality and his past interaction with the human race. This includes the life, teachings, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, testified to by the 27 books in the New Testament written by contemporary eyewitnesses who all personally knew him. These men all went to their death as martyrs, insisting that what they said about Jesus was the truth.

Paul probably never met Jesus, and we’re not at all certain how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John died, but we claim no expertise in such matters. Here’s how the letter ends:

What we really need to get rid of is the kind of willful ignorance and religious bigotry demonstrated by the writer.

Amen to that! Oh — he probably means the earlier letter-writer. Anyway, dear reader, now you have your scientific proof.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #329: “Just a Theory”

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Yuma Sun of Yuma, Arizona. The letter is titled Theory of evolution is just a theory. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

I was raised in public schools being taught that people came from the deep blue. That by some anachronistic timetable and natural favor, we were led on a path to intelligence. We were told that there were data and data of empirical proof that these things happened.

The letter-writer must have slept through the lesson on evolution. He continues:

The truth is, there is not one book in the world that can show or catalog how one species can turn into another. In fact to the contrary, whenever one tries messing with the genome of a species, they die at an early age or become sick later in life because of the disorder caused by the tinkering.

Either he never heard of Genetic engineering and its beneficial applications, or whatever he may have learned comes from creationist sources. Let’s read on:

Even the stages of change printed in textbooks do not account for the fact that life on Earth, however many years ago, used to be more complex than it is now. It seems something happened in the past to make it harder for these complex species to exist. Nothing can explain this upside-down tree in the beginning of the timeline. Somehow things deteriorated.

Anyone know what he’s talking about? We don’t, but we want to hear more from this guy. Get this:

The “theory” of evolution will always be a theory for me. I just wish people were more open-minded about where they come from, not just accepting an idea born of sight, sound and touch.

Yes — don’t believe the evidence of your senses, even when it’s verified by the observations of others. Instead, one should be more open-minded and believe … what? Perhaps we’ll find out as we read some more:

Another concern is this. When did money, school and work become less personal than what you believe? Somehow, what I know to be true in my heart, like love and compassion, have no place in my working, learning and paying life?

What’s he saying — that his emotional state is more important than everything else in the world? Okay, if that works for him. Moving along:

All these things are connected. What we value, what we know, our passions and our beliefs. There is no other place for them except in our lives.

Huh? Well, he’s right — there’s no place for his passions except in his own life. They certainly have no place in constructing a scientific theory. Here’s now he concludes his letter:

Everything is personal. How can some things be less personal than others? Especially these things? These tangible amazing gifts. There really is no other place to put them. So please stop trying to take the ability to express them away.

That’s it? What did he say — that objective reality must yield to his emotions? We get the impression that the theory of evolution is a serious threat to his emotional life — which he regards as the most real and important thing in the world — far more important than something that is “just a theory.”

We never ran into this argument before, but it may be an interesting insight into what drives creationists to be the way they are.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Louisiana: Still More Creationist Madness

There were two events involving creationism that the Louisiana legislature dealt with yesterday. In both matters, the state continued to wallow in stupidity. There was also a third item which is only of historical significance. We’ll mention that at the end.

In The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana we read Legislative Briefs from May 13, 2013. Two items in that article are about creationism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

The state Senate overwhelmingly rejected an attempt Monday to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act.

We know what you’re thinking. That thing already died in committee, as we reported here: Victory for Creationism and Voodoo. So what was the Senate vote all about? Here you go:

Debate on the act, which critics claim promotes the teaching of creationism, ignited during discussion of [a different bill]. State Sen. Karen Peterson, D-New Orleans, tried to tack on an amendment repealing the science education act. “Louisiana made a huge mistake in 2008. Join with me in rejecting the bill passed in 2008,” Peterson said.

Peterson’s bill didn’t pass in committee, so we’re dubious about the tactic of refusing to accept defeat and then trying to add it to some other bill. Anyway, she tried. Let’s read on:

The Senate spurned her proposal, with five legislators voting for the amendment and 32 voting against it.

We assume that Peterson’s was one of those five votes, so besides her, there are only four other sane members of the Louisiana Senate. All the rest are creationists. Here’s the other item of interest in the same article:

Legislation that would give local school districts new discretion in picking textbooks was approved Monday by the state House. The vote was 73-22. The proposal, House Bill 116, next faces action in the Senate.

That’s Hoffmann’s bill, which we recently reported about here: Another Weird Creationism Bill. Having already passed in the House, it’s all but assured of success in the Senate. The story continues:

State Rep. Gene Reynolds, D-Dubberly, said some House members were concerned that the bill could pave the way for controversial books on evolution and other topics to enter the classroom.

“That is not what this is about,” Hoffmann replied. “I guarantee you that is not my purpose in bringing this act.”

Oh — we have Hoffmann’s guarantee. That means a lot.

There was one other creationism issue before the legislature, but you can read about that in this post by the National Center for Science Education: Louisiana to repeal 1981 creationist law? That’s the old “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” law that was held unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard, but it’s still on the books. NCSE has a nice quote from Barbara Forrest.

Over the objections of that old creationist warhorse, Senator Ben Nevers, who thought it was a good idea to keep the old law just in case they might be able to use it again some day, the Senate passed the repeal of the 1981 law, so it now goes to the House. Any guesses as to what will happen there?

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article