Creationist Wisdom #905: The Joy Lady

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (it’s actually a column) appears in the Tribune Star of Terre Haute, Indiana. It’s titled The Joy Lady: Don’t waste energy disbelieving in God, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using his full name — but today we have a special situation. It’s Verna Davis, described at the end as “speaker and writer.” She writes a lot of columns for that paper as “The Joy Lady,” and we found an earlier one that has her impressive picture: The Joy Lady. Here are some excerpts from her latest column, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Have you ever had one of those mornings when you feel you don’t even have the energy to get out of bed?

Actually, no, we never had one of those mornings. When you live with Dobermans, you gotta get out of bed. But Verna obviously has lethargic mornings all the time. After a few examples of things that require energy, like household chores, she says:

There’s one thing for which I would never have enough energy: I don’t have the energy to disbelieve that God created the world.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, that does take a lot of energy. Verna tells us:

Disbelieving the biblical account of creation must take so much energy. [Hee hee!] I mean, hundreds of people have used massive amounts of energy, spending countless hours to produce tons of volumes of words and theories trying to explain what the Bible explains in about 650 words. (To give you an idea of how short that is, I am allowed 500 words for this column.)

Those people are energy-wasting fools! She continues:

All that thinking and theorizing still doesn’t answer how the earth was really created, or how people and monkeys can be so similar yet still so different [Oook, oook!], or with what authority their claims can be proven to be true. The non-creationist people don’t have the energy it takes even to agree with each other.

She’s right, you know. After all that thinking and theorizing, those “non-creationist people” have nothing to show for their efforts. Let’s read on:

Trial and error of theories, suppositions, suggestions, endless questions of “what if …?” Who has the energy to develop and deepen and redevelop all those theories that still have so many holes?

Ooooooooooooh! All that thinking — for nothing! Here’s another excerpt:

Seems to me like it takes a great deal more faith to believe in accidental creation — or some big cosmic bang that formed the earth — than it takes to believe in a Divine creation by a Divine God. It takes a great deal of energy to ignore the signs of God’s presence in this world.

Yeah — who has the energy for that? Then she quotes an ark-load of scripture, like:

“The heavens declare the glory of God,” Psalm 19:1.

Verna finishes her column with this:

There’s no use spending energy trying to disprove something that all of creation already knows, that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.

So there you are, dear reader. Do as The Joy Lady does — don’t waste your energy on all that science nonsense. Just believe!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Editorial Supports Hambo on School Field Trips

We found a totally crazy editorial in the Tulsa Beacon, a weekly newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They don’t have a comments section. The editorial is titled Atheists target school field trips. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A group of atheists [Gasp!] is trying to prevent school children in Kentucky from visiting the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum. They sent letters to some schools surrounding the museum with a warning that they shouldn’t take students on field trips there because all public school events should be “secular.” They want students to be taught that only the theory of evolution – that man evolved from ape-like creatures [Oh no!] – be taught and that schools have no Christian influence.

We recently wrote about the field trip controversy — see Hambo’s War on the Constitution. Hambo was complaining about a letter claiming that public school field trips to the Ark Encounter or Creation Museum are unconstitutional violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He insisted that separation of church and state is nonsense. Now he has support in Oklahoma. The editorial says:

They [the hell-bound atheists] ignore the U.S. Constitution, which allows students to explore differing viewpoints. [Huh?] Ken Ham, the CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis, said children already get “evolutionary and atheistic indoctrination … five days a week for the whole school year.”

Then the editorial tells us:

The only way that a public school would violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution would be if teachers told students that this is the only true interpretation and that they must accept Jesus Christ. In other words, there is nothing wrong with a visit to the museum but it is an exceptional educational and cultural experience.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The teachers don’t need to say anything. Hambo’s museum and Ark replica make that claim for them. The editorial continues:

It is a parallel principle to the teaching of the Bible in public schools, which is completely constitutional even though school boards and administrators all over the nation forbid it.

Yes, it’s “completely” Constitutional. Let’s read on:

This is a bullying tactic by the secular humanists (atheists) who want students to be indoctrinated – not taught – only the “facts” that they adhere to.

Ooooooooooooh! Insisting that public schools should adhere to the Constitution is a “bullying tactic.” Why — Oh why — do they oppose theocracy?

Another excerpt:

The rate of Biblical illiteracy in America is getting worse. When the United States was founded, the Bible was the primary textbook. Our legal system is based on principles from the Bible.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See Is America a “Christian Nation”? And now we come to the end:

The field trips should continue unhindered.

Hambo must be thrilled to be supported by such a brilliant editorial. So let the buses roll!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Discoveroids: Science Is Oogity Boogity!

This may be the boldest post ever from the Discovery Institute. It’s titled Scientist as Shaman — Seeing Through the Sham. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Ira Berkowitz is ID the Future’s Jerusalem correspondent. In a new podcast he talks with Rabbi Moshe Averick about the shamanistic role that our culture recruits scientists to fill.

ID the Future is a series of Discoveroid podcasts, which they crank out instead of doing publishable science research. We’ve never listened to any of them, and we’re not going to start now. Regarding the “shamanistic role” that science plays in our culture, Klinghoffer gives an example:

Think, for example, of the late Stephen Hawking and how his fevered pronouncements in his final years were received.

Yes, Hawking was nothing but a crazed witch doctor. Then Klinghoffer tells us:

It’s a wonderful discussion. [Hee hee!] Averick is the author of [Who cares?] Be sure to listen to the end for an awesome story about a sage who foresaw, in the 1920s, how the choice between destructive modern technology and its alternative, the ancient project of teaching human beings to be humane, would play out in decades to come.

Undoubtedly it’s another pitch to bring back the good old days — see Discovery Institute: Enemies of the Enlightenment. He continues:

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We won’t soil our blog with that link. You wanna listen to that stuff? Go ahead, click over to Klinghoffer’s post and find the link for yourself. Meanwhile, Klinghoffer goes on:

This exaggerated respect given to scientists in all matters, treating them as “high priests,” is obviously relevant to debates about biological origins. These debates often incorporate philosophical assumptions, not derived from scientific data, that in turn drive our understanding of what the data mean.

The Discoveroids sound more and more like ol’ Hambo every day. Another excerpt:

It’s only because of the sham role of the scientist as “medicine man” that we don’t see these assumptions for what they are — including, as Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ creationist blog] mentioned earlier today [link omitted], “the arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism.”

Regarding the Discoveroids’ dislike of methodological naturalism, which is the essence of the scientific method, see Bring Me An Angel Detector!

Here’s how Klinghoffer ends his brilliant post:

Recognizing that arbitrariness is an important step toward deflating the power of such a rule, with its great potential to corrode human dignity.

Yes, dear reader, until you recognize the shamanistic nature of science, you’ll always be a fool! Meanwhile, Klinghoffer’s human dignity is intact.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom #904: Evolution’s Catch-22

Today we have a column that appears in the The Lion’s Roar, the student newspaper of Southeastern Louisiana University. It’s titled Higher power makes more sense, and they have a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Besides, she’s still a student, and from her picture, she seems to be a sweet young lady. Her first name is Maiah. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I believe that evolutionism is a pretty faulty doctrine with holes like a block of Swiss cheese. Even though this is my belief, I do not find it necessary to parrot that oft-repeated evolutionism vs. creationism debate in its most typical form. … No, for that old debate has been reiterated so many times and in so many ways, the witness simply yawns to endure it again. That is why, though it is tempting for me to poke holes in the evolutionary theory, I would choose to better direct my time explaining why I am a candidate of creationism.

That’s fine with us. She says:

To be frank, one of the reasons that I firmly support creationism is because it makes sense. The thought of some “power,” or “existence,” that had superior foreknowledge and foresight to diversely create, is far more believable to me than “chance,” trillions of adaptations as the evolutionary theory insists.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Then she tells us:

According to the abstract theory of evolution [Abstract?], it is in a constant state of gradual mutational flux. I am convinced that such thing as a genetically “stable” population, not to mention community and biosphere, would be almost, if not entirely impossible.

The biosphere is always in flux, but beyond that, Maiah doesn’t believe in mutations. She explains why:

This can even be viewed in nature: If a black bear has only one cub as opposed to the usual two or three, then she will simply abandon it. If a bear is willing to abandon her cub just because it did not come in a pack of three, then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?

Hey, good point! Let’s read on:

This leads me to my second, parallel point: evolution does not make sense. Not that the concept is hard to understand, but that it is simply absurd. [Yeah!] With the sheer complexity and order of life and biology, even in something so basic as a single molecule of DNA, I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around it all “evolving” based on chance. I cannot, with any trace of sincerity, consider that the only distinction between me and an earwig is a couple of branches on a top-heavy, phylogenetic tree.

Maiah ain’t no kin to a creepy insect! She continues:

Moreover, the idea that mankind evolved from apes is simply preposterous. [Right!] I mean, if man really did evolve from apes, wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today? After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?

They’re extinct, but we have evidence that they once existed. Maiah should look at the Wikipedia article Homo.

She goes on and on, but that was the best of it — except for the way she ends her article. It was the source of our title:

Interestingly enough, although some scientists seem to look down upon the thought of a higher power, they themselves insist upon the fact that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements. If man is the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species, then why is religion one of the distinguishing factors of mankind? Does this not imply that awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence? I challenge the evolutionist to counter this Catch-22. [Her logic is undeniable!] As for me, my convictions are solid.

Face it, dear reader. Maiah is more evolved than you are.

To be fair to the student newspaper, they have another column with the contrary point of view: Evidence or faith as our model of origin. It’s definitely worth a look.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article