Intellectual Free-Fire Zone #11

This is the worst day we can remember for our kind of news. For the moment, there’s no new creationism legislation we can write about, and the few pieces of litigation (Coppedge and Oller) we’re following haven’t generated anything we can discuss. No school boards have proposed adding creationism to the science curriculum, and the websites we look at (ICR, AIG, and the Discoveroids) have nothing of interest.

Well, we found something at Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s in their latest News to Note, January 14, 2012 — “A weekly feature examining news from the biblical viewpoint.”

The first item there is “Mankind the Story of All of Us” likely to be more “story” than “history.” They’re complaining about the History Channel’s new 12-hour mini-series, “Mankind the Story of All of Us,” which will debut later this year. AIG claims:

The project’s executive producer, Jane Root, says it will be a “real action-adventure” program starting with the big bang and tracing “the development of humans on a planet where the vast majority of species go extinct.”

As you can imagine, AIG is outraged. Among their many criticisms are these:

If the producers ignore God’s eyewitness account of man’s creation and the rest of the historical material in Genesis, they will not only present unverifiable ideas as if they were established facts but also rob the viewing public of the truth of human heritage.


Since the series begins with the big bang, we bet the true age of the universe won’t get airtime either. The series will cover “astronomy, geology and other sciences” and “make liberal use of computer-generated recreations in its storytelling.” Therefore, the producers, if they choose, will be able to convincingly blur the distinction between observable science and evolutionary interpretations.


We cannot expect the secular world or the History Channel to portray all the history we know to be true, for they see it incorrectly through a worldview that glorifies humanity while ignoring God, but we dare not leave God out. We know better.

AIG has their gripe about the History Channel and we have ours. They spend way too much time on fluff like Ice Road Truckers, Ax Men, the Cable Guy, Ancient Aliens, Swamp People, Nostradamus, and similar nonsense.

Anyway, this is another intellectual free-fire zone for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2012. 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

8 responses to “Intellectual Free-Fire Zone #11

  1. “…God’s eyewitness account…”

    What court of law would accept an “eyewitness account” from someone who is nor currently present in court and was not present at the time and place of the incident in question?

  2. It is so good to see that I am not the only one who considers
    so many of today’s TV shows on what I once considered educational
    channels are nothing more than junk. Too many promote ignorance
    and superstition. Preying on the trailer trash crowd to gain a larger
    viewing audience and strictly for the buck. No concern for the public

  3. This is the worst day we can remember for our kind of news.

    Which means it’s one of the best for science and society.

    Perhaps, someday, so little creationism will be in the news that you decide to stop blogging here forever. I’ll miss you, and probably so will the rest of the community here, but it will be a joyful day nonetheless.

  4. “God’s eyewitness account?” Where is there any claim made that Genesis is the eyewitness account?

    Contrast that with Job, where God is purported to explain the creation of the Earth, how God had to wrestle a great dragon . . . with no mention of “In the beginning . . .,” no mention of Adam or Eve, no mention of Eden.

    Eyewitness account? Not Genesis, Job.

    Don’t those people read their own book?

  5. Over at the Washington Post, education columnist Jay Mathews has painted himself into a corner by supporting both the so-called Santorum amendment and the Disco Tute.

    The comments are the best.

    Jay whined that 7 out of 10 emails he received on the subject called him an idiot. That number is probably closer to 9 out of 10. In the comments Jay only replies to the weakest support anybody gives him while ignoring the mountain of evidence against his opinion.

    In particular he makes the outlandish comment that the Disco Tute supports common descent, which they manifestly do not, but is unmoved by the citations and links provided contrary to his opinion.

    It’s typical of the creationist mentality, even those people who only support creationism marginally but find themselves having to either dig in and defend their position, or admit they were wrong and move on. Obviously, Mathews is not about to admit he was wrong even though the evidence is overwhelming to everybody but himself.

    It’s like Santorum denying he said “black people” in a statement the other day when he clearly did say those words, caught on video and audio. He still thinks he can deny, deny, deny and it will somehow magically change reality. But, seriously, folks, the Disco Tute does have the student’s best interests at heart. They really do want to teach more science. More, mo, mo science, baby! They really, really, really do. They’re not bad people, they’re just drawn that way.

  6. the notion that some supernatural force (not necessarily God) brought life to earth

    What else is supernatural? Aliens? Aliens, I suspect, would be natural, but advanced. Supernatural = God. Be a man and stop trying to sell it any other way.

  7. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Perhaps, someday, so little creationism will be in the news that you decide to stop blogging here forever.

    For what it’s worth, newspapers seem to have stopped printing those goofy letters-to-the-editor what we all enjoy so much. I’m sure they still get written, but for some reason they’re not being published.

  8. Gabriel Hanna says:
    “Perhaps, someday, so little creationism will be in the news that you decide to stop blogging here forever. I’ll miss you, and probably so will the rest of the community here…”

    You’re right, Gabe, we will all miss SC’s writing if he no longer had anything to blog about. However, as long as hucksters are trying to make a buck by promising to build $24 million Ark Parks, selling creationist textbooks, etc., there’s going to be plenty to write about.

    I wish I were wrong.