Creationist Voyeurism: Case #12

Creationist voyeurism

Creationist voyeurism

This one doesn’t quite fit the pattern, but we’ll include it anyway. Our last post on this topic was Creationist Voyeurism: Case #10 & #11.

Each of these cases supports our hypothesis that there may be some heretofore unsuspected disorder which we call Creationism-Voyeurism Syndrome (CVS). We’ve defined it before, so we won’t do it again. In honor of the first case we learned about, it can also be called the McConaghie syndrome — see Creationist Suspected of Bathroom Voyeurism.

Today’s case may require us to broaden the scope of our research. As you’ll see, there’s no question that the accused man is a creationist, but the behavior in which he was engaged isn’t voyeurism. We may need to change the name of the disorder we’re investigating to Creationism-Perversion Syndrome (CPS). We’ll keep that option open. Meanwhile, let’s get to the news.

We found this in the Tinley Park edition of the Chicago Tribune. Their headline is Tinley man told police he approached children to debunk Darwin. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A 70-year-old Tinley Park man accused of using dandelions to try to lure four Grissom Middle School children into his car last month told police he was actually trying to teach them about creationism.

You can easily understand why this case belongs in our collection. The man literally admitted that creationism is what drove him to his activities. Here’s more:

Asked about the incident, the man said he’d recently returned from a seminar debunking Darwinism. He said he wanted to share the information he’d learned that proved the theory of evolution “is false” with neighbors and children.

He wanted to share his information, so naturally he lured children into his car. Perfectly understandable creationist behavior. Let’s read on:

The children said the man called them over to his car, asking, “Did you know you can count the seeds in a dandelion?” They said he wanted seven cents a plant.

He tried to sell them dandelions? Why would he do that? And why seven cents? We’re told:

The man also told police the dandelion reminded him of “a global sphere, which I wanted the children to show their teacher.”

Oh. That makes sense — seven cents, to be exact. Here’s how it ends:

The man, who was not charged, said he would continue trying to provide information about creationism.

We don’t know what dandelions have to do with creationism, nor do we know what to make of this incident. But we do know that it’s always best to keep children away from creationists.

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

7 responses to “Creationist Voyeurism: Case #12

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Well, it sounds like something Hambo might do. Oh wait, he’d want to charge admission to learn about creationism.

  2. My oh my, I used to live in tinkey park back in 98-00. It’s the home of the Midwest Christian center or family harvest church or whatever the mega church of born again xtians has changed its name to this time. I knew several members back then, and during the y2k scare I was asked to speak at the church because they were afraid of the utilities failing and other nonsense, I declined. I’ll have to check the local papers to see if this is someone I know. If it’s someone from the mega church, it’s unsurprising.

  3. The whole truth

    Way off topic but lookee at this:

    Please get screenshots in case I miss anything that gets deleted.

  4. This case is really creepy–not least of all because this weirdo appears to have been given a ‘pass’ by law enforcement because he claimed to be acting in the name of religion.

    One would hope the police will keep an eye on this guy. One might also presume that, had he said he wanted to tell the kiddies about Dawkins and urge them to reject religious indoctrination, he most certainly (and properly) would be on some sort of watch list.

  5. “Voyeurism” threads don’t interest me as much as others, but I should pay more attention, because they add to my contention that the common stereotype – that all “creationists” are “squeaky clean” churchgoers – is far from reality.

    The biggest mistake that most people make is to assume that the problem with creationism is “belief in fairy tales and other falsehoods.” That is simply not true. Most people, including adults, believe many “things that ain’t so,” and yet become productive, law-abiding citizens. That includes millions who choose to believe one of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis, because it “feels good.” More often than one might think, they will admit in confidence that the evidence at hand does not look good for their origins story (global Flood, etc.). But they hope and pray that someday it will, or simply don’t need no stinkin’ evidence, they just believe.

    The big problem with “creationism” is when another small minority of “creationists” crosses the line from (mostly) benign belief to all-out activism. They spend an inordinate amount of time “evangelizing” to others. The first point that needs to be emphasized, it that they are much more obsessed with what others must believe than what they themselves might believe (which we never really know anyway). The second point that ought to strike everyone as extremely odd is that they are, especially in recent decades, much more obsessed with promoting denial of evolution than with attempting to support any particular alternate “explanation,” e.g. one of the mutually-contradictory literal interpretations of Genesis.

    It’s a separate debate whether this behavior is an uncontrollable “addiction” or a deliberate choice, but the common “pre-existing condition” is almost always an extreme authoritarian worldview, whereby the anti-“Darwinism” peddler sees himself – note how rarely it’s a “her” – as “above the rules.” As do voyeurs and other perverts.

  6. @ Frank J: v. thoughtful post, thanks. I agree: I’m really not even remotely bothered about what someone else may or may not believe, it only gets contentious (for me, anyway) when dishonest and manipulative proselytising enters the picture, as it does with Discoveroids, Hambo, et. al.

  7. @Megalonyx

    I think those of us who have closely followed the “debate” are ~99% on that same page. But I have been increasingly concerned that it has not been “trickling down” to the average person on the street who accepts evolution and has problems with “creationism.” The drive-by comments I see on online posts (e.g. NCSE’s blog and Facebook page, letters-to-the-editor) include an alarming % that are embarrassingly bad and self-defeating, often sounding at least as paranoid and spiteful as those from anti-evolution activists. Fence sitters – as much as half the adult population according to many polls – are unlikely to be any more impressed with that than they are with “foot-stomping, fire-and-brimstone Genesis literalism.” But they are likely to be impressed with bogus “life is too complex to arise by chance,” “evolution has gaps” and “it only fair to teach both sides” arguments.