WND: Rev. David Rives — Bait-and-Switch

Two days in a row! This isn’t good for our nerves. This morning we were awakened by the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™. Instantly alert, we rushed to the computer and were directed to an article in WorldNetDaily (WND) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page.

The Retard-o-tron™ was focused on WorldNetDaily’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. WND’s headline was Darwin’s ideas: Recycled gobbledegook.

Well! When the rev speaks, people pay attention. It’s the same when the Curmudgeon’s dogs — Phobos and Deimos — go to the back door and bark. We listen! And we know what’s coming.

The rev’s video is titled Aristotelian Evolution. It runs for ninety thrilling seconds — or, if you prefer — one point five minutes. Any way you look at it this is quality time.

The rev tells us that evolution isn’t new. It’s Greek myth. It’s paganism and atheism. Darwin used a sleazy bait-and-switch tactic when he talked about observable things and then proposed his theory. The good rev ends the video by saying: “Sorry, Charlie!” Yea, verily — the rev is the man!

As we’ve done before with the rev’s videos, please feel free to use the comments section as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, now go to it.

Copyright © 2013. 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

14 responses to “WND: Rev. David Rives — Bait-and-Switch

  1. I liked the borderline-intelligible comment #2 from a creationist tiring of Rives evolution version of 99 bottles of beer on the wall.

  2. I hope your Retard-o-tron™ uses cheap fuses. Evidently you have to buy them in bulk.

  3. The idea of Darwinism as pagan religion/philosophy is very old, and I believe originated with the Nazi ideologue Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who was fanatically anti-Darwinist and anti-Semitic, and a big influence on Hitler. In his 1914 book “Immanuel Kant” he goes on for more than a hundred pages attacking Darwin and Darwinists.

    The old Nazi’s claim that Darwinism is a pagan religious belief, not really new and not science, contains all the same arguments as those used by creationists today.

    Curm, you may wish to compare the old Nazi’s 1914 prose with that of creationists from a century later. Nothing has changed.

    In the same chapter, Chamberlain touts the bacterial flagellum– yes, the icon of the Intelligent Design movement– as proof that evolution could not possibly happen. He also touts his own version of Behe’s Irreducible Complexity; in his case it’s called “reciprocally conditioned parts.”

    You can read Chamberlain’s claims that Darwinism is a pagan religion, in English, online here: [Houston St. Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant, vol. II, Chapter 1 “Plato”, See pages 117-120] If you do a line-by-line analysis, it’s the same argument as that used today. Little has changed.

  4. Diogenes tells of Chamberlain’s “reciprocally conditioned parts.”

    I like that expression better than anything the Discoveroids are using. So today’s creationists are closeted Chamberlainists who believe in Chamberlainism.

  5. If you don’t mind, I’ll just copy in the old Nazi’s prose here. Just like David Rives and Ray Comfort, he repeatedly states that evolution means “something came from nothing.”

    Chamberlain, 1914: “Hypotheses of evolution are as old as the world; we are justified in assuming that every uncivilised people believes in spontaneous generation, that is to say, in the production of Life directly out of that which is lifeless, and believes that one form of life proceeds out of another. The totemism, the religious veneration of certain animals, which is so widely scattered over the earth, always rests upon a belief in the blood-relationship between man and beast; it sometimes happens that the actual descent is expressly given. [103] The ancient Egyptians, who had long since abandoned this primitive stage of belief, had yet no hesitation in holding that spontaneous generation of Life took place in the damp earth penetrated by the Sun, followed by progressive development: [104] the old Babylonians held the same belief. So, barely two centuries before Plato, we hear a man of the relatively high culture of an Anaximander forbidding the eating of fish “because the fish is at once father and mother of the man.“ This philosopher brings forward a detailed scientific doctrine of evolution: according to him Life first arose in water, and in the struggle for existence, and by adaptation to changing conditions, gradually developed itself; in the course of time single animals climbed on to the land, where, in accordance with new circumstances of Life, they underwent deep-reaching changes and so forth.[105] Origen and others among the first founders of Christianity were convinced of the evolution of forms out of one another. These phantastic doctrines were so plausible and persuasive to the average mind, that they never disappeared, though they certainly assumed a more refined shape in the brains of the few important thinkers. That a Paracelsus or a Nikolaus of Cusa should regard the continuous procession of living beings which they believed themselves to perceive, as explicatio or evolutio of a unified thought of creation, is indeed a mystical explanation, but it conditions an empirical theory of evolution. This theory crops up again under modern colours in the case of men who, like Leibniz and Diderot, represent the opinion that the land animals proceeded from water animals after the seas had retired; Herder’s conception of transformation is more refined: the doctrines of descent of Maupertuis, Erasmus Darwin, de Maillet, Bonnet and others are pure natural science. As Kant rightly says: the acceptance of a spontaneous generation of simple beings, followed by an ever-increasing formation of more perfect organisation, is so near to us, so simply adapted to humanity, “that there can be few, even of the keen-witted investigators of natural history, who have not at times felt such a hypothesis run through their brains“ (Ur. § 80, note). [106] Thus we hear Voltaire pouring his ridicule over the people whom he saw round him teaching that “man was originally a porpoise.“ [107] It would be naturally impossible for me here to give even the most brief sketch of the history of the theory of evolution: I only wish to call attention to the fact that it is not, as is commonly maintained, the last and highest attainment of the human intellect, but, on the contrary, a most obvious suggestion at which mankind arrived from the beginning of time. That Life should arise out of no-life, and should evermore be conceived in progressive perfection — in other words, the continuous creation of something out of nothing, seems to us no less worthy of belief than the creation of the world out of nothing, and the command to the Sun to move faster or slower, did to our primeval ancestors.[108] On the other hand, the success of true science has been in the exactly opposite direction: Pasteur, that true genius among the mob of shallow investigators of nature, has shown the way. Spontaneous generation must ever more and more be put out of court. So universal and uncontested was the acceptation that even Descartes did not doubt that rats — highly organised vertebrate animals, — were generated spontaneously in dust-heaps: to-day we know that not the tiniest bacterium can come into being otherwise than from another bacterium; indeed, every corporate form that is contained in a cell arises solely from a similar body; everything that is Form [German: Gestalt] comes from Form, not from Matter and Force. The origin of something out of nothing is, as accurate perception proves, just as unscientific an acceptation in the domain of Life as in the domains of Matter and Force. In the same way no doubt accurate perception, directed according to a correct abstract method, will prove that every change in the Life-form is in truth a constancy of Form

    … The question far rather turns on whether the essences of life come to us atomistically side by side, or whether they do not indirectly or directly all stand in mutual relation, — whether there is in Life a continuous additional growth, an origin of something out of nothing (which is the fundamental doctrine of all evolution), or whether, on the contrary, Life as a whole does not form a constant magnitude inside which continuous shiftings take place, though in such a way that every additional growth in magnitude, complication, etc. inside a group, conditions a corresponding change elsewhere, and that every adjustment to altered conditions (Matter and Force) always and without exception signifies the utmost possible constancy of Form [German: Gestalt]. I maintain then that in order to be able to think scientifically, we must premise, — that is, we must grasp the idea and raise it to a Law of Thinking, — that the universal Life of the world forms a unity, and indeed in such a fashion that the sum of formation (if I may so express myself) remains always unaltered.”

    [Houston St. Chamberlain, Immanuel Kant vol. II (1914), Chapter 1 “Plato”, p.117-120]

  6. SC said:

    This morning we were awakened by the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™. Instantly alert,

    How can you be “instantly alert” with the Retard-o-Tron going off all the time? Doesn’t it become the alarm clock that, every now and then, you decide to just hit the “snooze” button?

  7. Diogenes says: “If you don’t mind …”

    I don’t mind. Good stuff. Thank you.

  8. I should point out that the English translation of Chamberlain’s book is 1914, but the German version was 1905. He references cutting-edge research that disproves evolution, the cutting-edge research [microscopy] being done in 1900. So some of these “cutting edge” scientific arguments used by Intelligent Design, like the bacterial flagellum, are 113 years old.

  9. SC: “Well! When the rev speaks, people pay attention. It’s the same when the Curmudgeon’s dogs — Phobos and Deimos — go to the back door and bark. We listen! And we know what’s coming.”

    Beautiful!

  10. Jim Thomerson

    Speaking or Aristotle; his writings were considered dogma in the early Christian church. There was a term for him and other Greek thinkers indicating that they were inspired by God, but I do not recall the appelation.

  11. doodlebugger

    Excuse me.
    After consulting a supersecret, double probation,
    black box encoded,satellite linked, supernatural, magical
    thesaurus, I “discovered” the following
    alternative words meaning or closely related to the word
    “goobledegook”as used in the Title of Curmudgeon’s article.
    They are; gobbelDgook, gobbeldyguk, gooblegooblegooble
    (as in the Butterball, which everyone knows has been treated
    with multiple unknown psychotropic magical hormonal substances
    of the mystical kind). Finally there is the ever useful term listed
    “beard man in the sky”.

    And in a related definition of the word gobbledegook,
    which is catywampus I find these terms meaning the same
    thing essentially; Klinghoffer, Luskin, Morris, Ham, design,complexity,
    gaps,choice,Comfort,Rives, critical thinking,and, the most
    closely related terms, Discovery Institute , ICR and AIG.
    Since my thesaurus is limited in that the dog ate pages 326 and 327 of
    this list which I have partially recounted here, excuse me if I’ve missed any. I would be happy to pen them into my necromancer thesaurical book to bring it completely up to date.

    Finally for all I propose the term FUBAR as a thoroughly descriptive
    term as well as the term “fhuge fraud” whose full spelling should not
    be interpreted as having anything but the most accurate of intentions by its creator.:)
    Thag u bery much. Achoo. 🙂

  12. That was somewhat frenzied, doodlebugger. I fixed it up a little bit, but I carefully left the essence undisturbed.

  13. Ceteris Paribus

    @doodlebugger: Did you originally intend “…a supersecret, double probation, …”
    to read: “…a double secret probation,…”?

    It comes to mind that when plu-perfect obfuscation of a perpetrator is called for, the traditional term of art calls for there to be a doubling of the fact that probation is being invoked.

    As the saying goes “It’s crackers to slip rozzers, the dropsy in snide”.

  14. I thought the ancient Greek pagans believed that Epimethius made the animals and Prometheus made humans. While there were less refined evolutionary hypotheses before Darwin, it makes sense that there would be that was the right answer.