Missouri Creationism Update (07 Apr ‘09)

EVER since we first reported on the introduction of an anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationism bill into the Missouri legislature (see: Missouri Creationism: You Won’t Believe It!), we’ve seen nothing about it in the news media.

We checked the status of the bill this morning, and nothing is happening — no hearings yet, and no activity is calendared. At last, however, something has popped up in the media. This isn’t much. We’re reporting it only because it’s about the legislation in Missouri.

The author is Timothy Birdnow, who maintains a blog which we’ve never seen mentioned. Nevertheless, Birdnow has managed to sell — or maybe just donate — an article to the website of something called American Daily Review. We’ve never heard of them either. Their founder, John Barnhart, is described like this — observe that there’s no mention of his education:

John Barnhart is an American Internet talk radio host, conservative commentator, published author, is a member of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, The National Coalition Coordinator for The Foundation for Conservative Solutions, a proud member of The Sovereignty Alliance, Gun Owners of America, The John Birch Society, various other conservative organizations, and is the Founder and Executive Editor of American Daily Review.

In other words, we are not among everyday, country club, free market, pillar of the community conservatives. We find ourselves deep in the fever swamps, where conspiracy theories lurk behind every tree. This is the natural habitat of that most peculiar species, the Creationistus Americanus Trailer-parkus.

Birdnow’s article is titled: Ending Evolutionary Card Check in Missouri. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

The Missouri House of Representatives is considering a bill, H.R. 656, which would allow teachers to buck the orthodoxy imposed by Darwinists:

Then Birdnow gives us the full text of the bill. We won’t bother with that. You can see it here: HOUSE BILL NO. 656. It’s the usual creationist nonsense dolled up as “academic freedom,” modeled after the misleadingly-named Academic Freedom Act, and promoted by the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids).

Birdnow also sprinkles his article with quotes from Einstein. We’ll ignore those, but be aware: Birdnow imagines that his prose belongs in such company. Let’s read on:

Now, this [the bill] sounds innocuous enough, but will doubtlessly raise a ruckus as the materialists struggle to retain their power over the minds of America`s youth. The reason that Darwinian theory stands alone in biological sciences is that the theory (I would call it a vague hypothesis) tolerates no competitors, and the young are indoctrinated into it early on.

Birdnow, however, is sufficiently brilliant that he has somehow thrown off all that indoctrination. He’s free of the Matrix! The jig is up! We continue:

By the time a young man or woman becomes a researcher or teacher, they have been thoroughly steeped in the notion that Darwinian Natural Selection is inviolate, and they know that they will meet a terrible fate should they disagree with any of the tenants. There is a gag order imposed among academics which silences any criticism of this theory. H.R. 656 is an attempt to change that.

Whoa! A “terrible fate.” Like what? Maybe … not getting hired for a job that requires a brain? Here’s more:

But such change cannot be allowed, because an open debate means exposing the nude emperor. Natural Selection is the cornerstone of modern atheistic materialism, and their entire worldview comes crashing down if Darwin should fail. I expect that there will be great anger and furious wrath over this should it pass into law.

Yeah. Open debate would allow the creationists to present their evidence — a right they fully enjoy today. On those rare occasions when they’re actually told to put up or shut up (as happened in Dover), who has been revealed as the nude emperor — or rather, the naked fool? It’s much better for the creationists to continue claiming that they’re being silenced and “expelled.” This fantasy is a great excuse for having nothing to support their “science.”

Moving along:

I often hear Natural Selection compared to the theory of gravity. Hmm. Let me ponder for a moment; Newton gave us g=GM1M2/Rsquared [sic] while Darwin gave us, uh, “species survive because they are fit, they are fit because they survive.”

See the difference?

Yes. We understand — as Birdnow does not — that physics and biology aren’t the same. We also understand from his description of what “Darwin gave us” that Birdnow doesn’t have a clue about Darwin’s theory. Aside from that, what precise mathematical expression do Birdnow and his creationist colleagues offer us? How about this:

Six days of creation + Noah’s Ark = The Truth™

Dear reader, in case you think we’re being too critical, and you’re still in a lenient mood regarding Birdnow, here’s another excerpt:

Frankly, if the science were incontrovertible, why did we have to have the Piltdown Man hoax? Why the faked pepper moth display? To take it one step further, why do scientism proponents still promulgate the falsehood that people believed the world was flat until Columbus, or that Christianity stood in the way of science? Nicholas Copernicus was a priest, after all, and Galileo was a devout man although he had his problems with the Church hierarchy.

Okay, we can’t take any more. If you can, then click over there and read it all. Our conclusion is this — With supporters like Birdnow, the Missouri creationism legislation has found its proper place in the intellectual spectrum.

Copyright © 2009. 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

6 responses to “Missouri Creationism Update (07 Apr ‘09)

  1. carlsonjok

    they will meet a terrible fate should they disagree with any of the tenants.

    You know, these guys might be, oh, 2 to 3% more effective if they could actually right a proper English sentence. Tenants? Seriously?

  2. carlsonjok says: “Tenants? Seriously?”

    Good catch. I missed it.

  3. Also, carlsonjok – “right a proper English sentence.” Right? Seriously?
    And Curmudgeon – there’s a “to” that should be “too” in your post…

  4. Mark, I fixed the article. Thanks. I assume carlsonjok was being ironic. I’ll fix his comment if he wants me to.

  5. I assume carlsonjok was being ironic.

    Yes, ironic. That is it. That is exactly it….or something……

  6. I’m very disappointed. No “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?” and no claim that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. Piker.