Creationist Wisdom #369: Washington Times

This is the most incredibly ignorant rant we’ve ever encountered. It’s not the usual letter-to-the-editor, but we’ll treat it as such. Instead it’s an actual column in Washington Times Communities, which we’re pretty certain is part of the Washington Times. According to Wikipedia, that newspaper “is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1982 by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon.”

This thing was written by Frank Kacer, described as having a “regular Biblical Politics column with the Washington Times Communities.” The column is titled Why are public schools terrified of examining evolution & creation? You have to read the whole column to really appreciate it. Every sentence is loaded with the most wild, raw, primitive creationism available anywhere — and we know what we’re talking about because we’ve seen more than our share of that.

Because you’re going to click over there to read it all, we’ll give you only a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. It begins like this:

If evolution is true, there’s a simple way for public schools to destroy any student’s belief in creation. Simply test each theory objectively in science classes using the scientific method. Instead, irrational lawsuits, court orders and fears of anything hinting of Christianity have become the weapons of choice to prevent use of objective science. So, what are public schools really afraid of?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re afraid of The Truth. But the game’s over, because Frankie discloses everything we’ve been trying to hide. Stay with us, you’ll see:

Believers in evolution see all life originating by natural processes from non-living matter. This “goo to you” progression requires billions of years, no divine intervention, and sees natural selection (survival of the fittest), mutation, or some yet undiscovered process as responsible for all observed life.

Creationists believe God purposely and uniquely created the entire universe; all matter, energy and fully functioning living species in six days (Genesis 1:1-2:25) out of nothingness (Hebrews 11:3) thousands of years ago.

How can evolution withstand such a side-by-side comparison? Let’s read on:

So why do government schools have such an irrational fear of objective scientific comparison? Could it be that the worldview implied by mindless evolution is so radical compared to a worldview implied by a Creator?

Yes, that explains our “irrational fear.” He continues:

With evolution, life has no real meaning unless someone arbitrarily thinks so. There’s no ultimate purpose; no moral right or wrong; and no reason to think racism, sexism, abortion or even genocide is anything more than survival of the fittest. If a Creator God doesn’t exist, we’re accountable to no one, and any manner of moral deviancy or government atrocity is no more than a choice.

That’s why so many biologists are baby-raping, cannibalistic monsters. Here’s more:

To dismiss creation as just religion and treat evolution as proven science has nothing to do with objective, scientific facts. Each theory should stand or fall based on available, tested evidence. That being said, is evolution demonstrably true as many believe? Consider the following:

What follows is what Frankie thinks is an absolutely devastating list of evolution’s faults, including the second law of thermodynamics and the fact that “Every known organism is clearly designed in marvelously intricate and self-contained ways. There are no partial, non-functional parts waiting to evolve (or mutate) into something useful.” Not only that, but then he asks: “What about the lack of unambiguous transitional life forms in the fossil record?” After that he says:

Ultimately, the evolutionary belief system envisions mankind continuing to progress until he obtains some form of god nature. Interestingly, that was the very lie that Adam and Eve were deceived by in the Garden of Eden that resulted in their spiritual and physical death (Genesis 3:1-5).

You gotta admit — this guy knows what he’s talking about. One last excerpt from the end should be sufficient:

Which worldview will prevail is the real battle, not just which theory of origins best fits the facts. One explains why death exists and gives hope; while the other tries to explain life and offers no hope.

Now click over there and read it all. We left out a lot of goodies, and you don’t want to miss any of them, do you?

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

36 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #369: Washington Times

  1. Christine Janis

    This is my favorite
    But there’s an even more basic problem with evolution: answering why all life must die. If unthinking, purposeless evolution could bring inanimate matter to life, why couldn’t it keep life from dying?”

    Oh, that snake has a lot to answer for.

  2. “If a Creator God doesn’t exist, we’re accountable to no one, and any manner of moral deviancy or government atrocity is no more than a choice.”

    This tiresome argument is so flawed. Sadly it’s pulled out of the bottom of the barrel every time. Yet the most flagrant violators of any so-called religious moral code seem to be non other than those professing a deep religious belief and that they are doing their god’s work by their actions while suppressing everyone elses liberties.

  3. “Now click over there and read it all. We left out a lot of goodies, and you don’t want to miss any of them, do you?”

    I don’t know, it all depends if there is enough aspirin in the house!

    This stuff gives me a splitting headache!

  4. Richard Olson

    Reads like a transcript of a Gish gallup.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    My snippet that bugs the crap out of me; “Although both theories are comprehensive in scope”. Creation story is comprehensive? Left out dinosaurs, and missed at least three animal kingdoms. And didn’t tell us how light got from stars to earth in days.

    Oh, the Bible explains the reason for death. Gotcha. Because of what two people did, nothing to do with cancer or disease or mutations. That is comprehensive. Sheesh.

  6. Each theory should stand or fall based on available, tested evidence

    Someone please point me to the evidence of creation… and please don’t say bible.

  7. Our old friend, Herman Cummings, the One True creationist, has shown up in the comments, with ID “hzcummi”.

  8. There’s a joke to be had in the screen name ‘hzcummi,’ but it’s just so early.

  9. makagutu asks to “point [him] to the evidence of creation…”

    The bible!

    “and please don’t say bible.”

    Dangit! I fall for it every time.

  10. If a Creator God doesn’t exist, we’re accountable to no one, and any manner of moral deviancy or government atrocity is no more than a choice.

    Whenever I see an argument against evolutionary biology, one of the first things that I check is whether the argument is at least as sound as an argument against reproductive biology.

    Of course, if one only believes in group responsibility, then one might think that the scientific study of changes in groups has some relevance to morality. Or if one believes that one’s ancestry, rather than one’s own actions, is what determines values.

  11. “With evolution, life has no real meaning unless someone arbitrarily thinks so.”

    This goes to the heart of the problem. People buy into creationist packages because they don’t think life can be meaningful without an external Validator. (Actually, appeal to such a Validator doesn’t help either – how do we know that we should accept His directions? euthyphro’s dilemma, but let that pass).

    Until we can get past this, we will make no progress.

  12. Paul Braterman says: “Until we can get past this, we will make no progress.”

    I hereby validate you. Problem solved!

  13. @Paul Braterman –

    While I agree with your observation about people feeling the need for an “external Validator”, I think that this is merely an excuse for the rejection of evolution. If this were the real reason, then people would be rejecting the scientific study of reproduction, development, genetics and/or metabolism – not evolution, and most especially not “macro”evolution.

    I think that the real reason is to be found in the revulsion at the idea of being physically related to “monkeys”. And that is an especially strong revulsion just because it is so obvious that we are related to other primates.

    That it is an emotional issue can be seen in the way that people do not think through what their solution entails. Namely, that we have bodies so much like chimps and other apes, in the anti-evolutionary scenario, because the Intelligent Designer(s)/God/Validator had some common goal in mind for all of us (or was it that they were somehow constrained by the laws of nature and the properties of the material they were given to work with?): Therefore, we ought to behave like monkeys.

    Rather than the evolutionary scenario which merely says that natural laws with no relevance to purpose are the cause of the similarity. We do not feel any obligation to behave like our predecessors even among humans, just because we are related by common descent: Even if my great-uncle was a horse thief, I wouldn’t feel any obligation to be one, too.

  14. TomS: “I think that the real reason is to be found in the revulsion at the idea of being physically related to “monkeys”. Agreed. This leaves them to explain why, if monkeys are so bad, why would any creator make us so much like them?

  15. Over at that article, Herman just told me I worship Satan and do his bidding. Quaint.

    — Diogenes

  16. I am a Canadian biblical creationist(YEC) and echo about what is the fear of giving equal time to the evolution/creation debate since its a debate in society.? Why is the DNA of this contention make it untouchable in science class in America? Its suspicious indeed about motivations of those who would censor!
    If evolutionism was actually intellectually confident then it would use science class to undermine the great percentages that accept creationism(s) to one degree or another. it would see it as opportunity to correct and educate. Instead it fears the debate would undermine evolutionist acceptance. The latter is true but why do evolutionists think so.?!

  17. Robert Byers contends—

    “If evolutionism (sic) was actually intellectually confident then it would use science class to undermine the great percentages that accept creationism(s) to one degree or another.”

    That’s what evolution has done and continues to do anyway. The major part of the problem is that creationists are either incapable or unwilling, or possibly both, to acknowledge it and choose instead to do battle against an army of straw men of their own making with an arsenal of illogic, misrepresentation, naiveté and outright lies.

  18. Do I sense an ever so slight self-contradiction here?

    Quote #1: “Ultimately, the evolutionary belief system envisions mankind continuing to progress until he obtains some form of god nature.”

    Quote #2: The evolutionary worldview “tries to explain life and offers no hope.”

    Er…in one moment evolution envisions mankind achieving “god nature”, in the next moment it “offers no hope”?

    Of course, it is anybody’s guess what he is really referring to. Evolutionary textbooks have very little to say about our coming “god nature”. Possibly this is some half-confused reference to transhumanist ideas, but even if the scenarios of Kurzweil et. al. come true, they are hardly a linear extension of biological evolution.

  19. @makagutu: Someone please point me to the evidence of creation

    IMHO, a more fundamental question is what creation means: what happened, when and where, how does it differ from evolution (or from any of the ordinary workings of nature, such as reproduction and development), what it would look like if it happened right before our eyes in nature or in the lab. (We can see evolution happening right before our eyes in nature and in the lab.) Does creation mean Omphalism, for example? When the cattle kind was created, was there a fully functioning herd of cattle, cows with (what they thought were) their calves, chewing their cud, flies around their droppings, …?

    Only after we get a scenario of what happens when a creation/design event takes place can we begin to talk about evidence for it.

  20. Robert Byers, after years of disrupting threads over at Panda’s Thumb, shows up here.

    Sorry, Robert, but you’re exactly the kind of commenter I don’t want. Go away.

  21. H.K. Fauskanger, I don’t know why your comments were trapped by the spam filter. It happens sometimes, nothing personal.

  22. That’s OK. I reposted thinking something was wrong, but my post isn’t quite brilliant enough to appear twice in quick succession. Please delete one.

  23. @TomS,am in agreement with you. The proponents of creation must first tell us what creation is and possibly how and I wouldn’t mind some evidence

  24. Hahaha Mark, don’t fall for it next time.

  25. Christine Janis

    So one commenter makes a big deal about how macroevolution isn’t repeatable in a lab, and then goes on about how Jesus died on the cross for our sins, yada yada yada. I posted a brief inquiry as to whether the death of Jesus on the cross was repeatable in a lab.

  26. The death of a man on a cross is most assuredly repeatable, in a laboratory or elsewhere. The “what happened three days later” is the real question.

  27. @Christine Janis – The response which one can expect is that we have an eyewitness account of the events in the Bible, so we know that these are historical fact. To keep this relevant to the issue of “creation vs. evolution”, God was present at the creation, and we have His first-hand account of it.

    And I am not the person to defend this. I’m just telling you what I have been told innumerable times.

  28. Christine Janis

    “And I am not the person to defend this. I’m just telling you what I have been told innumerable times.”

    I’m not saying that it didn’t happen. I’m just saying that it can’t be recreated in a lab. Thus, by my own criterion it’s quite plausible, but by those of a creationist it’s not.

  29. Because unless there is evidence, it’s not fit for a classroom.

    Otherwise we would open the floodgates to every religious creation story from Islam to Buddhist.

    How would you like it if we forced you to learn the Islam creation story?

    Where does it end?

    Evolution is a fact, your god is a myth, just like all other gods.

    Period.

  30. There is one thing I find interesting in all this. The guy here is asking for evolution and creation to be tested in a lab to see if one has more merit to it than the other. My question is what’s the problem with testing both theories in a lab?
    Even if I was an evolutionist I would want to know if there is any evidence of creation, and if it that evidence might justify further research. Furthermore, since evolution is an untested theory, perhaps there might be some other explanation on the origins of life.
    From both a creationist and an evolutionist standpoint we know less than .1% about the origins of life. Wouldn’t be a good idea to investigate it from every possible angle?

  31. Evolution has BEEN tested for 150 YEARS by every single biologist on the planet and they can’t put a whole in it.

    Evolution is a FACT. What is a theory is the EXPLANATION to the fact evolution. Get your FACTS straight before exposing yourself as ignorant on the subject.

    By all the evidence for Evolution and the 13.72 Billion year old universe, which are completely COUNTER to creationism, which is a 6 day creation and INSTANT life, scientist have proven creationism to be false.

    It’s now up to creationist to prove the scientist wrong. They have been trying for MANY years and what have they got? NOTHING.

  32. I would very much like a chance to prove you wrong. If I did present you with sufficient evidence to warrant a study in creationism, would you study it?
    I don’t appreciate being called ignorant. I would like to simply have a polite discussion on this topic. The fact is I’m not ignorant. I was an atheist, and I have studied evolution, and continue to do so today. Ignorant is not something you can call me. I find that evolution is guesswork built upon more guesswork. When I became a Christian, there wasn’t someone there telling me that evolution is wrong. I did the research on my own and came to my own conclusion about it. I also did research before I began believing in Jesus. Even after I began believing in God I still researched evolution from the standpoint of an old Earth creationist. After years of study and research I finally concluded that I believe the Biblical account of creation is true. I continue to study evolution because when I debate an evolutionist there is one thing they cannot call me: ignorant.
    You say that creationists have no evidence to back them up. If that were true, I’d be an old Earth creationist, not a young Earth creationist, wouldn’t I? I’ve found a lot of evidence. Once I can get my blog off the ground I intend to compile all the evidence I find for it there. I’d be interested to see what you say about it.

  33. I am really interested in collecting new arguments n favour of creationism, for many reasons. For an excellent compendium of the old ones, and why they’re bollocks, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html index of creationist claims and refutations

  34. Paul Braterman says: “I am really interested in collecting new arguments n favour of creationism, for many reasons.”

    You must be as weird as I am. You can see hundreds of them (only a few are truly original) in my collection of Creationist Wisdom. Just click on that tab above the graphic at the top of the blog.

  35. Quite so; but what I really, really want to know is, if evolution is true [indeed, since the truth of evolution is as blatantly evident as, literally, the nose on your face], why are there still creationists?

  36. Dorian Mattar

    Are you a biologist? NO? So how exactly do you pretend to know what you are talking about?

    For me to accept what you are saying, would be like me allowing you to operate on me on open heart surgery, simply because you say you can, but without EVER going to Med School and that would be very foolish of me.

    You want your hypothesis to be taken seriously,? Get a degree in biology, submit your findings to the scientific community for scrutiny and then when it makes it past that, it might be published.

    But judging from your writings, you will never make it past the first biologist.

    Your hypothesis is based on misunderstandings, arrogance and ignorance, none of which will play well with the scientific method.

    A theory is the highest achievement in science, it is the equivalent of a Bachelors, with a Masters, and PHD. Your idea is equivalent to child entering pre-school and forgetting their lunch at home.

    You are way out of your league.