Oklahoma’s 2021 Creationism Bills — Both Dead

Creationist bill, road kill

Except for the recent insanity in Maine, about which we wrote Creationist Bill in Maine for 2021, the only other creationist legislation activity this year has been in Oklahoma. When it first popped up we wrote Oklahoma Creationist Legislation for 2021.

Now we have the happy conclusion to that state’s madness. We learned about it from our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who just posted this news item: Antiscience legislation dies in Oklahoma. It was written by Glenn Branch, their Deputy Director. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 613 (PDF) and Senate Bill 662 (PDF), which would have empowered science denial in the classroom, died in committee on February 25, 2021.

There were two bills, essentially similar, and they met a similar fate. NCSE says:

Styled “the Academic Freedom Act” and “the Oklahoma Science Education Act,” respectively, the similar bills would have ostensibly provided Oklahoma’s teachers with the right to help students “understand, analyze, critique[,] and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught,” while prohibiting state and local administrators from exercising supervisory responsibility.

Ah yes, the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. Wikipedia has an article on it: Strengths and weaknesses of evolution, and we discussed that old clunker in our earlier post when these two bills were originally filed.

NCSE then tells us:

No particular scientific theories were identified as controversial by the bills, but a string of similar bills in the Oklahoma legislature — most recently Senate Bill 393 in 2017, which passed the Senate before failing to receive a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives — were clearly aimed specifically at evolution.

This year’s two bills were probably aimed at evolution too, but who really knows? Maybe the bills’ sponsors were promoting flat Earth or astrology. With droolers like that in the legislature, you can’t dismiss an idea merely because it’s so stupid that no one could take it seriously. Anyway, we discussed the sponsors in our earlier post when the bills were first introduced, so we won’t repeat that stuff here.

All that remains is to give credit to those who helped to kill these two bills. NCSE says:

Resistance to the bills was coordinated by the grassroots pro-science-education organization Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education.

Now dear reader, we ask you to pause for a moment and consider. At this moment, while most state legislatures are in session, there are no creationist bills under consideration — except in Maine. No others have been filed, at least not yet. This is a golden moment, so enjoy it while it lasts. It won’t be long until the droolers do something to muck things up.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Hambo Says There Was Never Any Life on Mars

We recently wrote NASA’s Search for Life on Mars — Futile?, predicting that Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else, would declare that life on Mars never existed, and NASA should stop wasting money on futile expeditions.

You may judge for yourself whether our prediction was correct, after you take a look at Hambo’s latest post at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry. It’s titled Was Your Great-Great-Great Grandma a Martian? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Last week “NASA’s most specialized life-hunting laboratory to date,” the rover Perseverance, successfully landed on the Red Planet. It’s a great feat of scientific ingenuity and achievement. Now that it is safely there, its mission begins as it rolls down what are supposedly ancient riverbeds in search of an answer to the question, “is there, or was there, life on Mars?”

Hambo displays his deep contempt for science when he says:

For many scientists, it is more than just a hope that microbial life will be found in clays on Mars. Some hope this will give insight into our own supposed evolutionary origins. For example, a recent popular science article quotes planetary scientist Christopher Carr who says, “There’s a number of things that have come to light only recently, which strongly support at least the plausibility of an origin of life on Mars and its potential transfer to Earth.”

It’s impossible to imagine Hambo’s disgust as he tells us:

In other words, your great-great-great (many more greats!) grandmother might have been a Martian — a microbial Martian anyway. (Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” in our second unofficial debate [Link omitted!] as I took him through the Ark Encounter in 2016, suggested a similar possibility and said, “It is not crazy.”)

But Hambo appears to think it is crazy. He continues:

Now why do researchers like Carr believe this? Well, because the supposed conditions on the early Earth weren’t ideal for producing life. So they believe perhaps the conditions on Mars were better, and life managed to get from the red planet to our blue planet, where it gained a foothold and eventually evolved into all the varied lifeforms we have today. It’s just storytelling to try to rescue a false worldview.

Hambo’s ministry would never engage in “just storytelling” to “rescue a false worldview.” Let’s read on:

Other researchers disagree with the “life began on Mars” hypothesis, with one quoted as saying, “I find [moving the origin of life to Mars] to be a little too dramatic . . . Maybe we just need to understand some of the chemistry better. Maybe our model for the early Earth isn’t as good as it should be.”

Hambo gives us a better model:

I would certainly agree that their model for the early Earth “isn’t as good as it should be”! Since they’ve rejected what God’s Word says about our early Earth — created covered in water on the first day of creation week, given an atmosphere on day two, dry land and plants on day three, flying and swimming creatures on day five, and land animals and humans on day six — they won’t properly understand our origins, the world around us, or even the origin of Mars!

Hambo is so wise! Now he tells those foolish scientists what they should be doing:

If they truly want to develop a better model for “early Earth” (Earth as it existed at the beginning of creation week, when God created it from nothing, just six thousand years ago), we need to start with God’s perfect, unchanging Word, not the imaginations of human beings who weren’t there, don’t know everything, and frequently make mistakes.

Hooray for Hambo! Another excerpt:

So what will Perseverance find on Mars? Here’s what AiG astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner predicts [Link omitted!]:

Hambo ends his post with a big quote from Faulkner. This is a tiny bit of it:

The evolutionary worldview requires that life not be unique to the Earth. [ Evolutionists are fools!] However, special creation leads to the conclusion that life is unique in many ways, but especially in the one place in the universe where there is life. Hence, I expect all tests for the existence of life on Mars to be negative.

So there you are, dear reader. NASA’s new mission will discover nothing, and ol’ Hambo knew it all the time.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Let’s Make Nudity Legal!

We haven’t yet found a news item to blog about today, but until we do we can’t resist asking you a supremely important question. It comes from scripture — the only source of reliable information. Our quotes are all from the King James version, of course, and we added a bit of bold font for emphasis:

Genesis 2: 15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

[…]

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[…]

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

That’s how it begins — Adam and Eve are in paradise, and they were naked. Keep that in mind as the serpent persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit:

Genesis 3: 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Now here’s our question: Assuming a mild climate, so that protective clothing isn’t necessary, why do creationists wear clothes? Think about it. They are not deceived. They accept every word of the bible as The Truth™. They reject the evil teachings of Darwin. They are truly saved and without sin. So like Adam & Eve in the garden, why aren’t creationists naked?

The reason is that the materialist Darwinists have conspired to make nudity illegal — but this is an outrage! Those who are without sin should be free to display their status, so we call upon all righteous people. Contact your legislators. Write letters to the editor. Get out there and demonstrate! Do not cease your efforts until the battle is won!

Remember: Clothes are the sign of the devil! If you reject the devil you should also reject clothes! Do it now!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Creationist Bill in Maine for 2021

A drooling, feeble-minded, creationist legislator has introduced an idiotic bill into the Maine legislature. We learned about it from our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who just posted this news item: A new “controversial issues” bill in Maine, written by Glenn Branch, NCSE’s Deputy Director. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A bill in the Maine legislature would ban public school teachers from practicing “indoctrination” — and contains a provision that could adversely affect science education. House Paper 395 (PDF), introduced in the Maine House of Representatives on February 22, 2021, and referred to the House Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, would, if enacted, require the state board of education to adopt rules to prevent public school teachers in the state from engaging in what it describes as “political, ideological[,] or religious advocacy.”

Where have we seen legislation like that before? Ah yes, a few states have considered such bills before. There was even one in Maine that didn’t go anywhere. We wrote about it two years ago — see Creationist Bill in Maine for 2019, followed by Creationist Bill in Maine for 2019 — It’s Dead. Okay, returning to NCSE, they say:

The rules would in particular require teachers to “provide students with materials supporting both sides of a controversial issue being addressed and to present both sides in a fair-minded, nonpartisan manner,” where “a controversial issue” is defined as “a point made in an electoral party platform at the local, state[,] or federal level.”

Teachers would be required to present both sides? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There are two sides to virtually everything, so if this crazy bill becomes law, the classrooms in Mane will be very interesting places. The law would require teaching not only creationism, but also flat Earth, racism, astrology, etc. Oh, wait — for the law to apply, the “controversial issue” must be a point made in a political party platform. No problem — there are loads of crazy politicians. NCSE says:

As Ars Technica (January 29, 2019) observed in discussing a spate of similar measures in 2019, “a large number of state party platforms specifically mention evolution and climate change.”

This wondrous piece of legislation is the handiwork of Representative CARMICHAEL of Greenbush, who is listed as sponsor. His bio page at the legislature’s website doesn’t tell us anything about him, except that his full name is Meldon H. Carmichael. We never knew a Meldon before. Hey — he’s not the only imbecile in the Maine legislature. Listed as co-sponsors are representatives DOLLOFF of Milton Township, DUCHARME of Madison, GRIFFIN of Levant, MASON of Lisbon, and POIRIER of Skowhegan. Idiots all!

The Maine legislature convened on 02 December 2020, and is scheduled to adjourn on 16 June 2021. There’s plenty of time for something crazy to happen, so stay tuned to this blog!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.