Monthly Archives: February 2009

More Proof of Noah’s Flood!

SORRY, science people — evidence for a global Flood keeps piling up. No doubt your sinful, scientific brains are still shaken by our earlier report of research from that venerable creationist website, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

You don’t remember that report? Your Curmudgeon knows better, but we’ll let you pretend that you missed it. Check it out: Creation Science Proves Noah’s Flood.

And now those tireless creation researchers have done it again! We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from ICR’s latest world-shaking news: Stunning New Evidence of a Higher Ancient Sea Level. The bold font was added by us:

According to the record in Genesis, there was a time when the entire surface of the earth was inundated with water. This possibility has been ridiculed because of questions regarding the origin and destination of all the extra water that supposedly would have been required to accomplish this. But newly described fossils of marine creatures found in a rock quarry in Bermuda indicate that ancient sea levels used to be 70 feet higher than they are today, which presents a puzzle to standard geological thinking.

Wow! Sea levels “used to be 70 feet higher” than now. Let’s think about the significance of that … Mt. Everest, located at the confluence of Nepal and Tibet, is 29,000 above sea level, so … . Well, never mind. Let’s read on:

There is little room for doubt now that sea levels have changed over time.

Or that land levels have fluctuated. These things have been known since the science of geology was first developed, a couple of generations before Darwin. We continue:

This evidence does not fit with naturalistic theories of origins, which assume that presently observable processes were responsible for all past geologic events.

What? What?? Here’s more:

Such an assumption arbitrarily omits the testimony of ancient written records, including the Bible and its account of Noah’s Flood. According to Scripture, the ancient earth was overflowed by water entirely. Thus, at some point, the sea level would have been higher than it is today.

Okay. Moving along:

The evidence at Bermuda can be interpreted according to either a creationist or an evolutionary viewpoint. However, the naturalistic evolutionary view must blindly guess at what could have caused the ocean to be 70 feet higher in the past, while Bible-based history relies on the eyewitness account of a world-destroying flood — a fitting place to begin an interpretation of the Bermuda marine fossils.

That was the end of the ICR article. Where does this leave us? It leaves you with a choice to make. You can choose either a blind naturalistic guess, or the comforting eyewitness account of Bible-based history.

While your head is spinning as you try to digest this stunning new discovery, permit your humble Curmudgeon offer some information that may help as you struggle to regain a grip on reality. It comes from here: Bermuda Islands: Formation and Geology:

Together with the submerged, encircling reef, they [the Bermuda islands] form the edge of a volcanic caldera, to the south of which the islands lie. … The volcano was formed on the fault line from which the Atlantic oceanic tectonic plates expand, pushing the Old and New Worlds away from each other. The volcanoes were formed by the Bermuda hotspot. A submarine volcanic mountain range, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was formed atop this fault.

But the theory that the Bermuda Islands (and their marine fossils) rose from the ocean as a result of volcanic action is just a “blind, naturalistic guess.” It could have been Noah’s Flood! It’s all a question of one’s worldview.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Hey Casey! (Number 2)

ape-finger-b2

A bit of background is probably required here. Everyone’s favorite creationist, Casey Luskin, was recently speaking at some creationist event. During a heated exchange with Abbie Smith, which she later described here: Casey Luskin, Abbie flipped a bird at Casey.

Upon experiencing this “Darwinist” atrocity, Casey did the blogging equivalent of bursting into tears and collapsing on the fainting couch. He produced an amazing narrative which appeared on the Discoveroid blog: Civility of Darwinists Lacking at Academic Freedom on Evolution Event in Oklahoma.

When we read that we posted: Discovery Institute: Casey is Flipped the Bird, which led to our cyber-acquaintance with the outspoken Abbie Smith. We followed up not long thereafter by posting this: Hey Casey!

Now for the latest — this isn’t related to the original bird-flipping episode, but it’s worthy of such a gesture on its own, so we have provided it. Casey has just posted a creationist classic at the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). It has one of Casey’s trademark titles — long and inelegant: Darwinist Opposition to Academic Freedom Bills Demonstrates the Need for Legislation to Protect Academic Freedom.

There’s no need to quote very much from that article, because you’ve already seen everything Casey has to say. But we’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold added by us:

Much to the chagrin of those who wish to prevent students from learning about science that challenges neo-Darwinism, academic freedom bills have been submitted to the legislatures of five states so far this year. The arguments from critics against these bills are utterly predictable — but they unwittingly demonstrate the need for academic freedom legislation.

You’ve got the general idea. They claim to have science that challenges the theory of evolution, but we’re desperately keeping it from the kiddies. The Discoveroid “academic freedom” bills are needed. They’re vital, in order to protect the kiddies from the Darwinists. Casey probably imagines that we’re all savages who flip birds at sensitive creationist lads.

Let’s have one more excerpt, from near the end:

These Darwinists are the ones who want to censor viewpoints by using intimidation tactics to convince teachers that if they discuss scientific weaknesses in evolution, then religion and “dishonesty” will come into the classroom. Such rhetoric creates a climate that intimidates teachers from feeling free to teach controversial scientific theories in an objective manner that discusses both majority and dissenting scientific viewpoints. This is harmful to education, freedom of inquiry, and the pursuit of scientific truth.

If you’re not throwing up at this point, why aren’t you? Anyway, now you understand the image which adorns the beginning of this post. It’s one of our cousins, and he shares our opinion of creationism.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Iowa Creationism: Opposition Emerges

AS WE’VE REPORTED in this earlier post, the Iowa legislature is considering an anti-science, anti-evolution, creationism-friendly law inspired by the misleadingly-named Academic Freedom Act, promoted by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

We are pleased to see that some opposition is starting to appear. In the Tribune of Ames, Iowa, we read: Iowa educators respond to evolution bill. Without quoting them, this is the situation:

There are faculty in Iowa’s universities who are calling for the state Legislature to kill HF 183, “The Evolution Academic Freedom Act,” introduced Feb. 3 by Rep. Rod Roberts, R-Carroll.

They released a petition with more than 200 signatures by faculty from several Iowa universities opposing HF 183.

HF 183 appears to be modeled on the Discovery Institute’s “model legislation,” but the Discoveroids say they’re not involved. We believe the Discoveroids, of course.

The article quotes Discoveroid Crowther as saying that they are often misrepresented as wanting to mandate teaching creationism or intelligent design, but they only “want educators to be free to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific theories involved in evolution.”

Just a bunch of great guys who want the imaginary weaknesses of evolution to be taught in state-run schools. The article also quotes someone named Norman Pawlewski from the Christian Alliance. He’s a lobbyist registered in favor of HF 183. He said, “Why shouldn’t teachers and students be able to decide among all the science-related information? God created science, after all.”

There’s a scientific argument! But we’ve seen this movie before, haven’t we? Same plot, different states. It all depends on how strong the creationists are in the Iowa legislature. If they’ve got the numbers, they’ll ram creationism into the schools. Nothing else matters — not science, not the quality of the school system, not the state’s economy. So stay tuned to this blog.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

Florida Creationism: Early Prediction

AS WE explained here: Florida’s Axis of Creationism, the Florida Baptist Witness is remarkably well informed about creationist legislation in that state; and we said that we’ve been scanning the Witness for indications of what we can expect in Florida this year.

Our search has not been fruitless. We found this article: Florida Baptists urged to ‘closely monitor’ Legislature, which we suspect is the best predictor you can find right now about creationist activity in the Florida legislature.

The article is about comments to the Witness by Bill Bunkley, legislative consultant to the Florida Baptist Convention, regarding his annual preview of the legislative session set to convene the first week in March. Much of the article is about gambling, abortion, and other issues of deep concern to social conservatives. For example:

Bunkley warned of “an increasing number of liberal proposals” in education, adoption, domestic partnerships, family planning, school clinics and “others that would in effect undermind [sic] the traditional family.”

Although your Curmudgeon has opinions on everything, we’ll quote only those matters of concern to this blog, with bold font added by us. But first some general observations from the article:

Bunkley’s first concern in the 2009 legislative session is the “mood and temperament” of legislators in light of the pressures related to the budget, which may result in less interest in addressing the “social conservative agenda.”

The Florida Senate, with many new members, “remains to be seen” how it will ideologically “shake out,” Bunkley said. “That body will have the greatest effect on the prospects for any pro-life, pro-family legislation this year.”

Okay, now let’s read on, skipping over the Seminole Indian gambling issues, abortion, etc.:

Unlike last year when legislators attempted to pass an evolution academic freedom bill intended to address concerns raised by the State Board of Education’s adoption of standards requiring a dogmatic, pro-evolution approach, Bunkley predicted such an effort is not likely to happen this year.

Hey, that’s news! There’s not much else in the article about creationism, until we get to the end:

Bunkley urged Christians to be “especially vigilant” in following developments in Tallahassee this year.

“In a blink of the eye government could interfere with the place of your worship, the freedom to worship, the rights to exercise your faith, to dictate what your children are taught in school even if that is anti-Christian in nature and so much more,” he said.

So there you are; that’s the early word. Not much creationism action is expected for this year. The big issue will be gambling.

Hey — speaking of gambling — we’ll bet five quatloos that there will be some serious creationism action in the Florida legislature this year. Any takers?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article