Creationist Wisdom #383: Radio Empire

These things are coming in clusters. Today’s letter-to-the-editor (like the one we wrote about in Creationist Wisdom #380) appears in the Columbia County News-Times of Evans, Georgia, a suburb of Augusta. It’s probably also a response to the same earlier letter, about poll results showing that Republicans are becoming more creationist than before. This one is titled More faith required for evlolution than intelligent design. Yes, the newspaper misspelled “evolution” as “evlolution.”

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians or otherwise in the public eye), so we usually omit the writer’s name and city. But this time we’re making an exception. This letter was written by Clarence Barinowski, from Appling.

It could be a coincidence, but a man by that same name is the President and founder of the Good News Network, described at their website as “comprised of 12 radio stations and 13 radio translators/repeaters that extend throughout the southeast, covering communities in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and now, Alabama and Mississippi.” It was “the first full-time Christian station in the Augusta, Georgia market.” Their website gives contact information with an address in Appling, Georgia, which is the name of the town where the letter-writer lives. We assume that we’re dealing with the same man.

We’ll give you a few excerpts from Barinowski’s letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

I think it is safe to say Republicans don’t have a problem with science. But regardless of the political affiliation, many thinking people have a problem with evolutionary explanations about the origin of the universe or life, and in particular about its claims concerning the source of the diversity of life.

Yes, it’s “safe” to say that, but is it true? We think it’s correct to say that the percentage of evolution-deniers is considerably greater among Republicans than among Democrats, but there are creationists in both parties. We assume that what Barinowski is really saying here is that denying evolution isn’t the same thing as denying science, because — in his mind — evolution isn’t science. He then says:

Contrary to your boilerplate response that any questioning of evolution must be “religious” in nature, the reality is that greater and greater “faith” is required in evolution to believe in its ability to accomplish what it is credited with doing. You may be mindlessly accepting the scientific establishment’s dogma that given enough time and chances “life will find a way.” (That may be a clever and popular cliché, but please remember it’s from the first Jurassic Park movie – not exactly the best source of real scientific information.)

Huh? Our acceptance of evolution comes from a movie? Perhaps that’s the way it is in the areas served by Barinowski’s Good News Network. Let’s read on:

Have you read anything (say even in the last 20 months) related to the new discoveries being made in genetics or paleontology? The whole evolutionary concept of junk DNA has been wiped away by the research called “the ENCODE Project,” a follow-up to the Human Genome Project.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s what the Discoveroids are claiming. We wrote about that in The Intelligent Designer’s Latest Triumph. Barinowski continues:

Have you heard about all the soft organic tissue that is now frequently being found in supposedly 65 million year or older partially fossilized dinosaur bones?

Lordy, lordy — that old clunker again. It’s a wild misinterpretation of the work of Mary Schweitzer — see TalkOrigins Claim CC371, and see also Dino Blood Redux, by Gary Hurd. Here’s more from the letter:

The fact that more people are questioning evolution indicates that more people are actually reading and learning what’s happening in modern scientific research these days, instead of getting their science education from movies.

Indeed, many people seem to be getting their information from creationist websites — and creationist radio stations too. Not only that, but such “information” is frequently published in newspapers, in the form of letters to the editor. It’s a strange state of affairs for a viewpoint that constantly claims it’s being censored. Moving along:

To see for yourself the number of highly trained and prominent scientists who have in agreement, signed the following statement, “we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Check out the list at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org. I really doubt they’re all Republicans.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s the pathetic list maintained by the Discoveroids, about which we just wrote in NCSE’s “Project Steve” Now Has 1,300 Steves.

The letter ends with a plug for Barinowski’s local radio station:

You could tune your radio to 91.7 and hear Scripture on Creation every Saturday at 5 p.m.

In closing, we’ve seen that creationists at the Discovery Institute are always complaining about censorship. We don’t know if any of Barinowski’s radio stations carry Discoveroid Michael Medved’s show (some probably do), but we don’t see any signs of censorship here.

Copyright © 2014. 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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #383: Radio Empire

  1. I’ve often wondered what people like Brainowski think qualifies them to deliver opinions that are at odds with expert consensus. More than that, I wonder with similar frequency what gives them the idea that they’ll be taken seriously.

    Mind you, bored youngsters seem eager to fall in line with faddish DJs. Perhaps that’s the market this spindoctoring letter writer is targeting.

  2. Christine Janis

    “Their website gives contact information with an address in Appling, Georgia”

    Not “Appalling”?

  3. Clarence Barinowski is no longer content with reaching just the people tuning in to his “Good News” radio network.

    It appears that he is now attempting to spread his anti-evolution message to those who can read, as well.

  4. I like how he mixes up ID and YEC. What would Casey Luskin and/or Ken Ham say?

  5. @Mark Germano

    There is no real distinction between ID and YEC that Casey would publicly admit to, although he has outed himself as an Old Earth creationist. “Big Tent” dontcha know. Ol’ Hambeaux dislikes ID because they are competitors for sucking up the coins of the credulous.

  6. Do these people spend any time fact checking their claims?

    (It was a rhetorical question)

  7. Stephen Kennedy

    I am convinced that the last dinosaur died about 65 million years ago. However, If I was to look out my back window and see one walking through my yard, it would not for a second force me to doubt the Theory of Evolution. There is nothing in the TOE that requires dinosaurs to be extinct. Scientists believe they are extinct because there do not seem to be any dinosaurs around anymore and the fossil record for the past 65 million years shows no evidence of them.

  8. Mark Germano: “I like how he mixes up ID and YEC. What would Casey Luskin and/or Ken Ham say?”

    I haven’t used the phrase in a few years, but I used to call that “Postmodern Synthesis.” Ham would not mind as long as it’s at least somewhat Biblical and does not defend OEC. Luskin would not like it, but would just bite his tongue for the sake of the big tent. He and the Discoveroids pretend to advocate “critical analysis” but when they see these clueless rubes and/or activists-in-training conspicuously avoiding any semblance of critical analysis of creationism/ID, they show their true (double standard) colors.

    I just skimmed enough to see a few uncritically parroted common misleading sound bites. But the title says it all, the painfully idiotic “it takes more faith” nonsense.

  9. @waldteufel

    Not to defend ID’s big tent scam or “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy one bit, but with the exception of Paul Nelson, every major DI player has admitted at least “progressive” OEC, which, unlike the day-age or gap variants, concedes the entire mainstream chronology (life originated in the water, and stayed there for ~80% of its history, etc.). As for concede common descent, they either concede it, or if they vaguely deny it, “leave the door open to it,” and do not challenge DI folk who do concede it. The only reason that their personal positions are so hard to find is that “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy, which keeps 99+% of their obsession on “weaknesses” of evolution, and (apparently increasingly) on perceived implications of acceptance (the Darwin-Hitler nonsense).

    With the caveat that I’m no more of a mind reader that those people who ass-u-me that most anti-evolution activists are closet YECs, I strongly suspect that Nelson’s friendliness to YEC is not due to personal conviction that any evidence supports it, but merely because he thinks it sells better than OEC or ID. And it apparently does, at least among letter-the-editor writers, even though the various OECs are preferred among evolution-deniers-on-the-street.

  10. anevilmeme: “Do these people spend any time fact checking their claims?:

    It should not be rhetorical, because the fact is that some do and some don’t. Unfortunately the ones that do learn 2 things that help their case. First, they quietly abandon those claims that most nonscientists might find unconvincing (remember AiG’s list of arguments that they said that creationists should not use? I think “dust on the moon” was one). Second, in their search they invariably find more facts and quotes that they can take out of context to spin more unreasonable doubt of evolution.

  11. Stephen Kennedy says ‘there is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires dinosaurs be extinct.’

    Exactly. Just so there is no reason to doubt the extemely ancient age of dinosaur bones thbat may retain some type of ‘soft tissue’. All either of these thing would mean is that we were wong about some ofthe details but not the big picture. In order to supplant thbe ToE and the standard undrestanding of geologic history any competing theory would have to better explain ALL known data not just the pick and choose kind. There is currently no competing theory… only some internally contradictory just so stories from the discoveroids and the more overtly religious. creationists