Creationist Wisdom — Example 77

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from a “guest column” titled Creationism vs. evolution — It always comes down to a choice, which appears in the News Journal of Mansfield, Ohio.

The author is Carole A. Pore, described as a retired family and consumer sciences teacher. We don’t know what “consumer science” is, but after reading this column we have no desire to find out. We’ll give you a few of the more peculiar portions of her column, with bold font supplied by us. Here we go:

Scientists are proud to recognize 2009 as the 200th birthday of the “theory” of evolution’s Charles Darwin, and the 150th celebration of his book “On the Origin of Species.”

Like that business of putting the word “theory” in quotes? Is the author trying to tell us something? Let’s read on:

But before we blow out the candles and cut the cake, perhaps we should listen to scientists on the other side of this hypothesis — some located at the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.

Ah yes, the Institute for Creation Research. It was good of the author to let us know right up front where her information comes from. Oh, did you notice that now the author refers to evolution as an hypothesis, without quote marks? It’s probably some kind of creationist in-joke, so let’s not bother with it.

We continue:

Evolution is a belief that is espoused by many intellectuals worldwide, even though there is no real scientific evidence to prove it, a number of scientists now counter.

No evidence! Now don’t you feel foolish believing in such a “theory”? Here’s more:

The simple case against evolution is that no one has ever seen it happen. Neither Darwin nor anyone else in the 100-plus years of costly research has ever been able to cite one single example of a new species originating. Of the billions of fossils researchers have seen, not one has shown transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Wow! We’ve got nothing! This is very embarrassing. Moving along:

Dr. Patricia L. Nason, chairwoman of the Department of Science Education at the Institute, believes it stems from a battle between two opposing worldviews.

Who is Nason? She’s listed on the “faculty” of ICR’s “graduate school.” (Two can play the quotes game.) And what are Nason’s two opposing worldviews — sane and insane? Let’s see:

“Just as creation is the foundation for Christianity, evolution is the foundation for the philosophy of humanism. Both are religions and both have basic assumptions on which their belief systems are founded. Creation and evolution are not science,” Nason said. “They are theories about the origin of man. … Secular humanism is the politically accepted religion of the day and its foundations lie in the theory of evolution.”

That was quite a load. You can’t find a bigger heap of it unless you follow behind a well-fed Tyrannosaurus Rex. If you can’t find one of those, a creation “scientist” will do just as well. (Like the quote-marks?)

We can’t take much more of this material, so we’ll wrap it up with one last excerpt:

In the end — after all the party hoopla life has to offer is over — it all comes down to a choice. You can either cut a piece of cake from the hollow end that offers nothing but crumbs, or you can choose the fullness of an eternal life that has been planned for you by a just and loving God. The choice is yours, and so are the consequences.

After that, as is appropriate for a column promoting creationism, the article ends with a scriptural reference. Hey, at least the author is honest about the source of her “information.” (We couldn’t resist another cutesy usage of quote-marks.)

If the gang in Seattle were to follow her example, we could respect them — at least in that sense.

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

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 77

  1. Back in my day, I think “consumer science” was called “Home Ec” but that’s not PC enough nowadays.

  2. retiredsciguy

    Carole a. Pore, the retired consumer “sciences” teacher, writes:
    ” it all comes down to a choice. You can either cut a piece of cake from the hollow end that offers nothing but crumbs, or you can choose the fullness of an eternal life that has been planned for you by a just and loving God. The choice is yours, and so are the consequences.”

    Guess she’s trying to tell me that I’m going straight to Hell for listening to reason rather than her religion.

  3. Guess she’s trying to tell me that I’m going straight to Hell for listening to reason rather than her religion.

    Maybe. But bear in mind, people like her don’t see this as a threat, only as a prediction — a prediction as to what will happen to those who chose fallible human judgment over infallible divine judgment.

    It’s a curious thing, you know, that the things that “we” like about science — its experimentalism, fallibilism, and openness to revision, even rejection, in light of new discoveries — are the very things that make “them” most anxious about science. Or the more honest ones, anyway, like Pore.

    I wonder if there’s a “wedge” to be driven here between the creationists who are genuinely afraid of the ethos that pervades modern science, and the creation scientists and IDists who claim to be all about the science.

  4. Lest you think Mansfield is a hotbed of Creationism… not too long ago I read the book
    Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim M. Berra (Stanford University Press, 1990). The significance is that Berra was a professor in the biological sciences at the Mansfield branch of Ohio State University

    According to Berra’s Wikipedia entry: “Berra’s book was the result of his having been asked to help local curriculum writers create a mandated curriculum to include all the science that demonstrated creationism. The writers had been unable to find science journal articles explaining the evidence for creationism. Berra pointed out that such articles do not exist. The book describes, for policy makers, why politics cannot mandate science that cannot be done. It is notable for a point-by-point rebuttal to chief claims of creationism.”

    Who you gonna believe… him or a home ec teacher?

  5. Deklane says: “Who you gonna believe… him or a home ec teacher?”

    I guess it depends on one’s worldview. That’s what the “consumer science” teacher says.

  6. Deklane says: “Who you gonna believe… him or a home ec teacher?”

    That might depend on what the “Home Ec” teacher puts in her brownies.

  7. Don’t these people have any other lines? Every one of these begins with “only a theory,” followed by “no transitional fossils,” and quick jab against “atheism,” and then “believe in god or burn in hell.” I mean come on. They aren’t going to convince anyone not already on their wavelength with this broken record, so why keep trying?

  8. Albanaeon: “They aren’t going to convince anyone not already on their wavelength with this broken record, so why keep trying?”

    From various sources I estimate that 25% of adult Americans will not admit evolution under any circumstances. Yet almost twice that many falls for some of those breathtakingly inane sound bites. And another ~20% accepts evolution but thinks it’s fair to “teach the controversy” in science class. So I have to sadly admit that anti-evolution activists, if not their more comical cheerleaders, are more effective than we are at communicating to those not already on their wavelength.

  9. Frank J, it might be more eloquent to someone without a solid background in critical thinking, but to a lot of people, its just plain sloppy. False dichotomies, slippery slopes, appeals to authority, and all other manner of logical fallacies and built up around a root emotional response. Many people’s base hopes and fears are built around their belief system, so its not very hard to at least get their attention by just suggesting that there is some threat to it. I can understand that part, but like I said, its so pathetically sophomoric that it makes me want to scream and break things. I guess the question is, how do we present evolution eloquently without dipping into the philosophic and beginning to justify these cretards in doing so.

  10. They aren’t going to convince anyone not already on their wavelength with this broken record, so why keep trying?

    Albanaeon , they aren’t really trying to convince the non-believers; that’s just the cover. It’s really about mutual reinforcement. They’re absolutely terrified they may be wrong.

  11. I was encouraged to see that most of the comments beneath the article expressed contempt for her opinion, although there were two or three idiots who had to get their two cents in.

    Ms. Pore showed up with a comment of her own:

    It is only Monday, and I have already been duly chastised for not “defending” my article on Creation vs. Evolution! I don’t believe it needs defending. The scientists I quoted in making my points spoke clearly enough, I believe. My intention is not to cause hard feelings, but to prayerfully give all readers the chance to hear what scientists from the Creation side have to say. As naieve as many of you may believe this sounds, I do have a love for mankind and I care where you may spend eternity. If you still wish a debate, the Institute for Creation Research is willing to come for that event. Thank you for your responses.

    I replied to her, but that is the wonkiest commenting system I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t even display in Firefox, and it’s buggy even in IE.

  12. Jeff Eyges says: “I replied to her, but that is the wonkiest commenting system I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t even display in Firefox, and it’s buggy even in IE.”

    I can’t see the comments there at all. Doesn’t matter, really.

  13. Which browser are you using? I can see them in IE and Opera.

  14. Yeah, you can’t see them in FF.

    Worst commenting system I’ve seen to date.

  15. I have Firefox also and couldn’t see the comments when I first read the “guest column.” I then noticed at the bottom of the article a tab to the right of “In your voice|Read reactions to this story”, I think it said “Hide Comments” initially. Clicking on that caused the comments to appear. Not that the comments add much to our discussion here. The thing I found most annoying about reading the comments was that when I clicked to go to the next page, it showed you the bottom of the page and you had to scroll to to actually read them.

  16. Yeah, I’ve seen that once before, but I couldn’t get the “Hide Comments” button to do anything, either.

    A high-end operation, it ain’t – but then, they’re running op-ed pieces written by creationist f***tards. So what can one expect?

  17. It’s a pretty awful commenting system, but I finally got it to display. And to defend the honor of Mansfield, around page 11 of the comments, a member of the newspaper’s staff joined in to *recommend* pro-evolution books like the new Dawkins. (And to apologize for the commenting system, sort of.)