Our tranquility was once again shattered by blaring sirens and lights flashing on the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™. The blinking letters on the wall said WorldNetDaily.
WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.
We were directed to an article written by Ben Kinchlow, whose work we’ve mentioned a few times before — most recently WorldNetDaily: Theocracy Is Our Only Hope. There’s actually a Wikipedia article about him.
Kinchlow’s latest is Stop and think about it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us, and the italics — Kinchlow uses them a lot — are his:
A proponent of the theory of evolution says we crawled out of the primordial ooze onto dry ground, and just look at what we have become today! Keep in mind, according to the dictionary, a theory is a “proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural.” It is a speculation, a guess, a conjecture.
When a creationist reaches for the dictionary, you know two things: First, he has no other non-scriptural reference books; and second, he’s going to select the least appropriate definition he can find. We use this online dictionary, and its first definition of “theory” is:
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
Kinchlow didn’t like that one. He chose the next, and he used only part of it. There’s no attempt at subtlety here; this is is raw creationism — intended to appeal to the most primitive minds. That’s why it’s published in WND. Let’s see what else he says:
[C]onsider the eyes you are reading this with: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Wonder what preacher said that? Oops, it was Charles Darwin, the father of evolution.
That’s correctly attributed to Darwin, but it’s wildly out of context, and it’s one of the most common and insidious of all creationist misrepresentations. We explained it in this post, Evolution of the Eye, so we won’t repeat ourselves. Let’s read on in Kinchlow’s steaming pile:
Life … feel the word. Roll it on your tongue. L-i-f-e. What is life? No one knows for sure, but it is assuredly much more than the result of a random bolt of lightning striking a pond of primordial stew.
Hey, that’s good! It’s been a long time since we’ve seen anyone advocate the theory of Vitalism. We continue:
How does your blood know exactly how many white cells and red cells it needs to achieve a perfect balance? How does the body know that if you have too many white cells you die, or if you have too few or too many red blood cells you die? Who instituted chemical laws, such as H2O [sic] and O2 [sic] , fertility and gravity, without which, life as we know it cannot exist?
Profound questions! Who — who? — instituted chemical laws such as H2O and O2? Here’s more, and so there’s no confusion, the parenthetical material is Kinchlow’s:
Could there have been an Intelligent Designer of such awe-inspiring magnitude behind all of this that it impels worship? (Say, for example, the first chapter of Genesis? God spoke and BANG! … it happened?) Nah, that’s religious. (One very brief point: The Bible is not a religious book and was never intended to establish religions, Christianity included. There are seven references to religious/religion in the Bible, and only one is overtly positive. My conclusion? God doesn’t like religion, either.)
Stranger and stranger. Moving along:
Consider this comparison: Alaska, a male polar bear (poster child for global warming) that hasn’t eaten for six weeks kills and eats a baby polar bear; New York City; a homeless guy who hasn’t eaten for almost three weeks snatches a baby out of a carriage, runs down an alley into an abandoned building, builds a fire, cooks and eats the kid. “Ben, that is barbaric!” (savagely cruel, exceedingly brutal, uncivilized). The intellectuals (and uninformed) who relentlessly denounce traditional, religious societal mores and argue so passionately for evolution’s natural law wail that such behavior among humans is uncivilized, wrong or even immoral. Why? Who says? Isn’t that just survival of the fittest?
Jeepers, he’s right! If evolution is true, we can eat babies! Another excerpt:
In other words, I can do whatever I please and no one has the right to impose their definition of morality on me. Right? Therefore, if, in my view, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, mothers having children out of wedlock and guilty racist whites should be eliminated, who is to say I am wrong? And based on what? Your opinion?
According to Kinchlow’s understanding of Darwin, he’s right! Here’s the conclusion:
As I have previously stated, if we are truly the product of evolution, then there are no moral absolutes, as there is no author of moral absolutes. If you believe evolution to be the truth, you can and/or will act in a manner consistent with your view of self – unless, of course, you stop and think about it.
We’re persuaded. From now on, your Curmudgeon is going creationist. It’s the only way. We don’t wanna eat no babies.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.