Obama & Creationism: A Clash of Worldviews

We’ve written a few times recently about some items we’ve encountered in a fringe publication calling itself Right Side News. The last occasion was here: Global Warming & Creationism. That publication may not be the mother lode of kookiness, but it’s certainly a rich source of that material.

Today we present some excerpts from It Truiy Is All In The World View, which appears — where else? — in Right Side News. The author is Lynn Stuter, whose work usually appears at NewsWithViews. Presumably this is her breakout opportunity to hit the big time of kookdom.

Lynn’s article is not only a defense of creationism, it’s also a raving anti-Obama piece. Your Curmudgeon rarely has anything good to say about Obama, but we try to be rational in our opposition. This article, on the other hand, goes over the edge in several different directions. You’ll see what we mean. The bold font was added by us:

As the State of the Union address having been delivered up by the resident in the White House, usurper to the Oval Office … . But a lot of good columns have been written since Also Known As (AKA) Obama stood before Congress with Jack-in-the-Box Pelosi popping up and down behind him on cue …

That AKA was angry that his Marxist agenda is being opposed by a growing number of the American people was apparent. That he hasn’t gotten the message that the American people want nothing to do with his Marxist agenda was also apparent.

[…]

History will undoubtedly show that AKA was not eligible to the office of president, was not the legitimate POTUS, but that the damage inflicted by his Marxist anti-American agenda will take generations, if even then, to reverse.

Okay, okay. We get the picture. Let’s skip that stuff and get to the creationism:

Government schools are teaching science based on the theory of evolution. A theory is an unproven supposition or hypothesis; a matter of conjecture.

The theory of evolution believes that species evolved even though there has been no definitive proof presented that such is the case. Darwin was an evolutionist. Evolution is a central tenant of the religion of humanism. Humanists believe that man evolved even though the “missing link” between man and ape has never materialized and, since the advent of DNA testing, the theory of the missing link has been generally discredited.

This is the writing of a deeply insightful mind. Keep in mind that “the religion of humanism” is her great evil, and Darwin was a follower of that satanic creed. We continue:

Creationism is another theory, also unproven, that God created the Heavens and all therein, Earth and all upon it. The Bible tells us that God is the one true God; that His word is irrefutable; His word is the first and the last.

Are you following this? Everything unproven is a theory. Good, huh? Here’s more:

In order for the government schools to meet the requirements of the First Amendment, they must not only offer science based on the theory of evolution but also the theory of creationism. Unless they do, they are unconstitutional.

The author is not only an expert in the philosophy of science, but she’s also a constitutional scholar. Moving along:

But Creationism is absurd? Says who? Says you? And you know how? But you believe in evolution? That’s your humanist world view or religion speaking. Is evolution more viable than Creationism? No.

In Lynn’s mind, that’s how it is. Evolution and creationism are just two worldviews, neither of which is more viable than the other. Reality is totally optional.

Want more from this brilliant writer? Sure you do. But we’ll skip over her ravings about the differences between “humanism” and Christianity. We’re told that Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler all embraced the former (Darwin too), and the Founding Fathers the were motivated by the latter.

We’ll also skip Lynn’s opposition to government-run schools — we don’t like them either, but it’s up to the states to make those decisions. Lynn, however, has a special reason for opposing government schools:

Just as Christianity as the world view of education violated the First Amendment so does humanism/New Age. …

This is why Christianity is taboo in the classroom, but children are immersed in pagan ritualism and New Age spiritualism in the form of guided fantasy/guided visualization, dream catchers, the worship of animals (Indian spirituality), chants around candles, radical environmentalism, etc. This is also why fits are thrown at the mere mention of Creationism, Christ, Christmas, Easter, etc.

Yes, in the author’s mind, that’s why we’ve got such a mess on our hands. What’s the solution? Here it comes:

If we want to remain a free people, the only way to do that is to govern ourselves and control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. The alternative is the one presented by AKA [Obama] and his elitist comrades …

Ah, so it’s either theocracy — including creationism, of course — or else it’s Obama. That’s the stark choice we face. Here’s the end of this amazing article:

Will we listen? Will we learn from the past; from what Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mussolini inflicted on the world and the people they sought to control? Or will we have to repeat their warped philosophy, religion, world view to learn? How many generations of our progeny are we willing to commit to oppression?

It truly is all in our world view.

What can we add? Only this: Were we to meet the author, the most polite thing we could say to her would be: “Your thoughts are celestial, my dear — they come from Uranus.”

Copyright © 2010. 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

17 responses to “Obama & Creationism: A Clash of Worldviews

  1. Evolution is the fact.
    Natural selection is the theory.

    Much like Gravity is the fact.
    Einstein’s special theory of relativity, is the theory.

    And clearly the lady you quoted as a very weak grasp on the concept of Marxism. It seems that right wing America likes to refer to anyone even slightly left of Reagan as a Marxist.

  2. If we want to remain a free people, the only way to do that is to govern ourselves and control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

    Poppycock. Ms. Stuter and the rest of her ilk can govern themselves by the Ten Commandments any time they want. Laws are what you use to govern others, not yourself. They are not fooling anyone; the only goal they have in demanding a change in law is to limit the freedom of people who believe differently from them.

  3. Talk about ‘worl views’ generally, and in this context in particular, is psychobabble. We use different set of rules to evaluate different circumstances. To take an extremely hypothetical example, with the possible exception of accountants*, nobody evaluates a Saturday-night pick-up on the basis of pure, rational evaluation. You probably shouldn’t buy a life insurance policy based on the colour of the salesman’s shoes.

    This moron is just doing a tribal war dance.

    *Q: What do accountants use for contraception?
    A: Their personalities

  4. Incredible. It’s letters like these that remind me why the Founding Fathers were so brilliant in keeping church and state seperate. Could you imagine people like these in charge? We’d be arguing if shellfish were worse than gays and fighting to the death about it.

  5. Amadan says: “This moron is just doing a tribal war dance.”

    Nooooooooooo! It’s either the humanism of Darwin, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler; or else we “govern ourselves and control ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

  6. Timothy Norfolk

    This doesn’t sound like humanism.

    “Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity … We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years.”

    [The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872]

    “I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand
    years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before—the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.”

    [Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922]

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

    [Adolph Hitler speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933, 26 April 1933]

    “The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were… I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”

    [Adolph Hitler, 26 April 1933, (cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich)]

  7. But, but, but. Timothy you’re definitely confused. Hitler was a Darwinist since every evil person since the publication of Origin of Species has been. That’s God’s Own TRVTH! Just ask Klinghoffer, who has irrefutable proof of them being Darwinists, such as living after Darwin’s publication and being very bad people. How can you argue against that!

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    Evolution is the fact.
    Natural selection is the theory.

    Much like Gravity is the fact.
    Einstein’s special theory of relativity, is the theory.

    Gravity’s not a fact. That a stone falls to the ground when you release it is a fact. That the moon takes 28 days to go around the Earth and always presents the same face is a fact. Gravity is the theory that explains both facts.

    Evolution is not a fact. The fossil record is a fact. That organisms exhibit complex adaptations to their environments is a fact. That organisms inherit characteristics from others is a fact. Evolution is the theory that ties all those facts together.

  9. She forgot, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”

  10. James F says:

    She forgot, “If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?”

    There may be a part 2. Be patient.

  11. futiledemocracy: “It seems that right wing America likes to refer to anyone even slightly left of Reagan as a Marxist.”

    Political extremists on all sides have an annoying habit of wanting everything both ways. Depending on what point they need to make, they either claim that the majority supports them or that they are an oppressed minority that “sees the light.”

    The irony is that I agree with the radical authoritarians (aka “fundamentalist far right”) that our species is in moral decay, but I think they are part of the problem, not the solution.

  12. Timothy Norfolk

    Gabriel – I would pu it a little differently. Both Evolution and Gravity are facts. Our explanations for them (Evolution Theory and Gravitational Theory) are our flawed models of these phenomena.

  13. I agree with Futiledemocracy, this from a retired Biology Prof. Gabriel you are nit-picking. What you said is not completely untrue just taking the definitions of fact and theory too far into presenting examples derived from a philosophical discusion of science. Read some Gould, etc.. (not that he’s god by they way…can’t be…)

    Not trying to be “mean” critical Gabriel.

  14. If evolution is true, why are there still Creationists?

  15. The Gadfly asks: “If evolution is true, why are there still Creationists?”

    They’re the left-behind people.

  16. Gabriel Hanna

    Gabriel you are nit-picking. What you said is not completely untrue just taking the definitions of fact and theory too far into presenting examples derived from a philosophical discusion of science.

    I think this is very important. I think it needs to be clear what science does and what it doesn’t do. I think it needs to be made clear that theories and facts are entirely separate categories of knowledge; the “evolution is just a theory” criticism assumes that a “theory” is just a guess about something which has yet to be verified.

  17. Gabriel Hanna: “..the “evolution is just a theory” criticism assumes that a “theory” is just a guess about something which has yet to be verified.”

    IMO the best acid test to see if someone is just innocently unaware (weren’t we all at one time?) of the diffference between the scientific and “colloquial” definitions of “theory” is to see what they do after the difference is explained. If they deliberately repeat the error, they sold out to pseudoscience. I would excuse the occasional “I have a theory..” slip, even though I take pains to say “hypothesis” or “speculation” depending whether it’s testable – and yes, most nonscientists give me a funny look when I do. But there’s no excuse for contuining to call evolution – or anything – “only a theory,” after one has been corrected.