Creationism, Winston Churchill, & UFO Abductions

History would be very different if Winston Churchill’s “We Shall Fight On The Beaches” speech had ended with: “Oh, and last night I was abducted by a UFO and they probed me for an hour or two.”

Our point, of course, is that if one wants his words to be taken seriously, the first priority is to avoid sounding like an idiot.

In that context, consider this article: Politically Correct Terrorism, and the Invincible Ignorance of the Left appearing in Canada Free Press, a source we haven’t tapped before. The writing is a bit over the top in a few places, but the author isn’t wrong when he says:

Political Correctness (PC) seeks to impose a uniformity of thought, word, and behavior on all Americans. It is Marxist in its roots, stifling in its influence, and destructive in its effects. It is diametrically opposed to the traditional American values of free speech, free thought, and freedom itself.

The article is strident, but it’s nevertheless a fair criticism of our political and educational systems. Despite such merits, this isn’t the sort of material we’d usually be discussing here, except for something near the end — and this is what drives us crazy. As victims of political correctness, the author tosses in:

Witness the “scientists” who decry the findings of Intelligent Design as being “theological nonsense,” or the climate “scientists” who close their minds to any data that doesn’t conform to their politically motivated findings. These “scientists,” aren’t scientists — they are ideological hacks. Many “teachers,” aren’t teachers — they are ideological propagandists. Many government “representatives,” aren’t representatives — they are ideological con-artists. And on, and on, ad nauseum.

We’ve written about the global warming issue only once or twice before, most recently here: Evolution, Creationism, and Global Warming. We don’t talk about it much because we don’t know the science. But we do know the politics of that issue, and we don’t like them one bit. Even if the experts are right about climate change, they’re morons (or maniacs) about economics. For that reason we can understand why conservatives are skeptical about the alleged “solutions” offered by global warming activists. Freedom should always be defended and tyranny resisted by every available means.

But while we understand why the politics of global warming is tossed into the rhetorical mix, why — Oh why? — do so many conservatives cover themselves with stupidity, destroy their credibility, and attack the theory of evolution as part of their political rhetoric?

There seems to be a missing link here. What’s conservative about denying reality and embracing creationism? While they’re denying evolution, why don’t they also deny the moon landings? The thought process is identical.

Just as Churchill would have lost all credibility by claiming to be a UFO abductee, so too would Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech have been ruined had he ended it by saying: “Last night I was seduced by a mermaid.” All of his revolutionary advocacy would have been lost in the laughter.

And so it is, dear reader, with creationism — including the extra-special, super-fraudulent, First Amendment stealth version known as intelligent design, which attempts to conceal creationism’s traditional ignorance behind a mask of mendacity.

If those who should be defending Western Civilization and the values of the Enlightenment remain in the thrall of creationism, then the future will one day write our epitaph:

America (1776-20??)
Died of Stupidity

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

16 responses to “Creationism, Winston Churchill, & UFO Abductions

  1. Curmudgeon: “What’s conservative about denying reality and embracing creationism? ”

    Conceivably a “conservative” person could remain “skeptical” about evolution – and all of the proposed alternatives – until more evidence is obtained. But I know of no one like that. If any do exist, the last place one would find them is among the self-described “conservatives” who eventually reveal themselves as authoritarians. They are not truly skeptical, but “pseudoskeptical.” They single out conclusions that push their emotional buttons, and “distance themselves” from those that they know, and occasionally grudgingly admit, have no evidence at all to support them. So while trotting out all the long-refuted “weaknesses” of “Darwinism” they give a free pass to all sorts of mutually contradictory, long-refuted creationist positions. Ironically, while pretending to criticize PC-ness, they show that they are the truly PC ones.

  2. “Mask of mendacity” — nice turn of phrase, Curmy.

  3. The term ‘politically correct’ was invented by conservatives as a method of grouping concepts they don’t like so they do not need to be addressed individually. If you look closely you’ll see the majority of ideas labeled as PC are straw man arguments.

    Even this screed from the radically stupid rag Canada Free Press, which is known for getting things wrong more often than not, is full of straw man arguments.

    “…or the climate “scientists” who close their minds to any data that doesn’t conform to their politically motivated findings.”

    I’ll assume this refers to the blind adherence of the denialists to the idea that scientists ignore the sun’s effects, or possibly to the idea they ignore the natural variation seen in the past. What the denialists don’t admit is that it is they who are ignoring the fact that solar forcing is considered, has been looked at in depth and found to be an influence but one that is minor when compared to GHGs.

    The sun’s influence has not been ignored.

    That there were natural variations in climate in the past is irrelevant to the current issue. Each variation in trend big enough to be a concern can be analysed in terms of its cause rather than just its existence and that is what is being done.

    There has been no ignoring of evidence because of political concerns.

    Now I can’t say for sure these two points are what the author was talking about, but they are the two most common.

    There are some aspects of building equal opportunity that infringe on absolute freedom, but most of those are limitations of action or incitement.

    It would be nice if the right would drop the PC label and address the points directly.

  4. Tundra Boy says: “It would be nice if the right would drop the PC label and address the points directly.”

    Lots of things would be nice. But if everything were, then how could I be a Curmudgeon?

  5. The Curmudgeon sagely notes

    Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech [would] have been ruined had he ended it by saying: “Last night I was seduced by a mermaid.” All of his revolutionary advocacy would have been lost in the laughter.

    He might have lost all his revolutionary ardor had he been seduced the previous night by a mermaid. Man, they can really take it out of you, believe me!

  6. Great Claw says: “Man, they can really take it out of you, believe me!”

    I believe you. But isn’t your sheep jealous?

  7. why — Oh why? — do so many conservatives cover themselves with stupidity, destroy their credibility, and attack the theory of evolution as part of their political rhetoric?

    *delurks*

    This one is too easy, my friend: the Religious Right. Alas, speaking out against the evil liberal atheist Darwinists scores political points with the base. Note that the conservatives that have decried intelligent design are not part of the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell wing: Charles Krauthammer, George Will, John Derbyshire, even Dinesh D’Souza (probably because, as a Catholic, he does not come from a creationist religious tradition). I was very disappointed to read that Sarah Palin rejects common descent in her new book, a stronger public antievolution statement than the bulk of the Discovery Institute fellows. This is a terrible trend for the GOP and the country as a whole.

  8. James F delurks and says: “Alas, speaking out against the evil liberal atheist Darwinists scores political points with the base.”

    Yeah, “the base.” I understand that in Arabic, that’s al-Qaida. Where have you been?

  9. James F: “I was very disappointed to read that Sarah Palin rejects common descent in her new book, a stronger public antievolution statement than the bulk of the Discovery Institute fellows. This is a terrible trend for the GOP and the country as a whole.”

    Actually she has progressed, albeit slightly, from her earlier assertion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Your link notes that she’s now probably either an OEC or IDer. It would not surprise me if she continues to progress, maybe to a Dembski-esque position that is unconvinced that we evolved from common ancestors but does not explicitly rule out common descent (e.g. with “saltation”). But unless pro-science conservatives speak louder than the scam artists who bombard her the feel-good sound bites, she will not be a friend to science education.

  10. Frank J says: “… she will not be a friend to science education.”

    I followed Palin rather closely last year. The faculty at the university in Alaska thought well of her. She never made a move to interfere with science education. Her views are odd, but she seems willing to keep them to herself.

  11. Curmudgeon: “Her views are odd, but she seems willing to keep them to herself.”

    Thanks. That gives me some hope that she may someday admit that 99.9% of biologists are probably not wrong. I don’t have any such hope for Jindal.

    I should add that, of the ones who do insist that evolution education be “liberalized”, I would not call it “progress” if they go from YEC to “maybe OEC.” More likely it’s not a concession, but a first step toward a “don’t ask, don’t tell” big tent scam.

  12. I was a global warming skeptic until I discovered that every claim, made by skeptics, which I had the power to check out, turned out to be a deliberate misrepresentation.

    They use the same tactics as creationists and involve a lot of the same people.

    I don’t agree with the environmental movement on the vast majority of things, but those are questions of policy, not of science.

  13. As for Sarah Palin, I no longer trust ANY characterization of her views that I have not personally checked out.

    She wants to be a creationist on her own time, it’s a free country and you have the right to be an idiot; if she doesn’t try to have it taught in science class I have nothing to say about it.

  14. With all offense to Sarah Palin, didn’t we already try terminally stupid that assured us that all views would be held before embarking on a radical agenda? Didn’t really work out all that well. Am I alone in thinking that someone aspiring to the highest should have the ability to form coherent sentences on their own, or that slight moves towards rationality still leaves her well off the deep end?