World’s Worst Creationist Writing

WE know why you visit your Curmudgeon’s blog. It’s because we search out and present to you the worst that the world of creationism offers. Today, dear reader, is truly your lucky day because what we found … well, you’ll have to see for yourself.

Here are some excerpts from Teen Talk: Teenhood Today: What’s love got to do with it? Everything, which appears in the The Daily Star of Oneonta, NY (population 13,292).

This isn’t a letter-to-the-editor. We’re not really sure what it is. The author’s name is Jessie Matus, “a 2009 graduate of Oneonta High School,” and the bold font was added by us. Here it comes:

Love is the final frontier.

What else is so improbable, so inexplicable, so stubbornly intangible as love? What else flies in the face of those who would keep tabs on it behind cold iron bars, if only they knew how? What else flits between the fingers of those who would cage it with classification, ferret out the secrets of its grandeur with a scalpel and bone saw, lay open its innards with a dichotomous key to study its diet? What else, if the atoms of love could be split, would send the human race scurrying into bunkers as a great, terrible fleet of joy and beauty bombs rained down?

Seriously now, we understand that the author is a kid, but still — have you ever read anything that was more filled with awkward metaphors, or more empty of meaning? If you have, then we must be shopping in different bookstores. Let’s read on:

The defining characteristic of the human being is to be unable to accept things as they are. With this and time, humans have risen to dominate a world that once chained them to their fire pits with luminescent eyes in the darkness that spun the harvest moonlight into beacons of salivating death.

The “defining characteristic” of this article is deep nothingness. But fear not, your Curmudgeon is merciful. We’re skipping over several paragraphs of dripping drivel about love, until we arrive at this:

Love is terribly un-Darwinian. The persistent desire to develop an unreasonable attachment to another unrelated being and to devote all of your resources to its continued well-being hardly meshes well with survival of the fittest. An evolutionary biologist would go into psychological trauma shock if all of the Earth’s creatures suddenly began falling in love at first sight without so much as an elaborate mating dance or clash of horns to prove their genetic fortitude.

See there? Darwin is proved wrong again! It’s so easy, even a child can do it.

We have to skip some more before we get to the next paragraph of interest, but not without excerpting a brief example of what you’re missing because of our selectivity:

What is love? Where does it come from, and why it is necessary? What is the source of tenderness and devotion? What is the purpose of wanting to be whatever someone has need of, and never asking if they love you in return?

I believe that love is what lends credibility to the idea of a higher power. …

Now that you’re all cozy and cuddly, here it comes:

The theory of intelligent design looks to the wonderful genius within the universe to advocate the presence of a higher being. Perhaps in the search for the elusive greater presence, we should look not to the masterpieces found in the natural world, but to the flops. Maybe such marvelous biological fallacies as love are the cracks left in the otherwise seamless cover that separates us from whatever lies beyond us. Maybe to fall in love is to throw back the Wizard’s curtain.

There’s not much more until the article ends, but we’re going to stop here.

Now, class — let us speculate about what kind of career the author of today’s article might pursue. Blogging for the Discovery Institute? No, that requires some degree of malice, and we don’t detect that here.

Well, if Seattle is out — and we know that’s the very bottom — is there no hope for today’s author?

At first we thought that the only solution would be a brain bypass operation, but we’ve come up with another option. We think there’s a future for today’s author in a new literary genre that’s just waiting to be born — creationist romance fiction.

Harlequin, are you paying attention?

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

13 responses to “World’s Worst Creationist Writing

  1. Given her age (I hope Jessie is female, the Archie Bunker in me can’t get used to guys writing that kind of fluff) I think there’s hope. A few minutes with Dr. Laura (very religious, very conservative, accepts evolution) might straighten out the misconceptions. OTOH I see little chance that Jessie will be a scientist.

  2. Benjamin Franklin

    Science editor for World Net Daily?

  3. Mixed metaphors of Hitlerian proportions.

    Clearly she hasn’t read any of the thousands of pages written by biologists on the evolution of altruism.

  4. Some of you may think my post is unnecessarily cruel, considering the age of that essay’s author. But there’s more involved than one kid’s foolish essay. Had the kid merely babbled about love the way adolescents will do, I wouldn’t have known or cared about it. Or if the kid had used some gushy concept of love to criticize physics or chemistry (which is most unlikely), it would have escaped my notice.

    However, my morning news sweep picked up that article because the kid elected to take a shot at Darwinian evolution, and to argue for ID. The kid’s “evidence” is nothing but an ooey-gooey emotion. That’s nonsense, but it’s what the kid is saying.

    This didn’t occur in a vacuum. As Dr. Zaius said in Planet of the Apes: “I admit that where there’s one mutant, there’s probably another and another. A whole nest of them!” And so it is here.

    This kid’s been to school, and the school has teachers. The kid has parents. The newspaper has an editorial staff. Many of those people, we assume, read and approved of the kid’s essay and thought it worthy of publication.

    So my post today is aimed at the whole creationist community, of which the kid is an unfortunate victim.

  5. Ummm …hmmm …yeah, well …ah …oh, maybe …no, that’s not it …ah ha! …nope that’s not it, either …ummm, maybe …hmmm …maybe a few minutes standing in the rain would help me …ummm …sort of wish I hadn’t read any of that.

  6. Just from personal observation… When I lived in an apartment complex in Phoenix, the upstairs neighbors had a young female cat I saw around the place quite a bit. In due course, the female acquired a boyfriend. A male cat from another apartment started hanging around her — for the obvious reasons, I’m sure, since I did come across them once doing that thing they do. But there was more to it than that, since they were together all the time, even snoozing together in the bushes. Then the upstairs neighbors suddenly vacated the premises in a hasty midnight move, taking their cat with them. The male came by the next day… and didn’t find the female. He lingered for several days calling for her… it was heart-wrenching.

    My “ex” in Phoenix had an old stray tomcat living on her back porch, and eventually a little stray female joined him. Both had been “fixed” at some point, so sex wasn’t an issue. They slept together in his box and seemed to spend most of their waking hours in each other’s company. Then the female got into something somewhere, maybe rat poison, and died… and the old tom was clearly distraught, yowling and whimpering for night after night (much to the dismay of my “ex”, who had to try to sleep through that).

    The point of these animal anecdotes? If these aren’t examples of love as humans know it, surely they show that at least some of the mammals can form emotional attachments to each other on some level, and that what we call love is an elaboration based on that. Call it “pair bonding” to be all dessicated scientific about it. Humans may have taken it further, but we aren’t unique or special in that regard. Maybe the question for Creationists is why the Designer gave animals at least the rudiments of feelings and emotional attachments when their lives are going to be short and filled with tragedies.

  7. We wuv you Curmy, 🙂

    See, it must be Darwinian.

  8. Curmudgeon: “So my post today is aimed at the whole creationist community, of which the kid is an unfortunate victim.”

    The irony being that a sadly misinformed kid and the slickest scam artist wind up saying the same thing: “I despise ‘Darwinism’ because it does not fit my ooey-gooey emotion.”

  9. Deklane: “Maybe the question for Creationists is why the Designer gave animals at least the rudiments of feelings and emotional attachments when their lives are going to be short and filled with tragedies.”

    Some “kinds” of creationists (IDers) have already answered that – between the lines of course. They know that any differences between H. sapiens and its closest relatives are differences of degree, not “kind.” So they divert attention to such remote “evidence” as bacterial flagella, Cambrian “explosion” etc., and occasionally even concede common descent.

  10. Let’s see how lovey dovey he feels when I shoot him up with oxytocin and seratonin blockers.

  11. LRA says: “Let’s see how lovey dovey he feels …”

    I Googled the name. I think the author is a girl.

  12. oh, then my point is even more valid, as girls are oxytocin makin’ machines!