We keep getting letters saying: “Hey, Curmy, you haven’t given us a good vomit opportunity lately. How about it?” That’s unfair criticism. We had one a few months ago — see Massive Morning Vomit Opportunity.
But if you’re looking for a really good, let ‘er rip, heavy-duty, all-at-once, mighty heave from way down deep, then you’re right. We haven’t had one of those since Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.
All right, Vomiteers, we’ve found what you’re looking for. It’s from Georgia Purdom, who received a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University. She’s a creation scientist on the staff of Answers in Genesis (AIG), ol’ Hambo’s online ministry. Here’s her bio page at AIG’s website — Dr. Georgia Purdom.
Georgia’s new essay, which begins with a great photo of her, is “Professionally Unethical” to Confuse Observational and Historical Science. Whoa — professionally unethical? This is serious stuff! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
A few weeks ago one of our staff members sent me an email reply she received from a scientist she had contacted. She had asked him for permission to use a photo he had taken for one of our publications. Here was his reply:
[The alleged reply:] Although I do license my images to some organizations, I will have to politely decline your request. As a scientist and in particular as a biologist, it would be professionally unethical to have my name associated with an organization that is so vehemently anti-science. The stance against evolution is particularly appalling: for me to support this stand would be like asking a physicist to deny gravity, for a chemist to not believe in atoms, or for a mathematician to disavow integers. Needless to say, these are all absurd. And as a further note, if I could in fact provide strong evidence to counter our understanding of evolution, this would make my career as a scientist. But as with searching for evidence that atoms don’t exist, this would be a profound waste of time.
Nice reply! But Georgia found it not only offensive, it was also “professionally unethical.” Here’s what she says:
As one of several scientists working for AiG, I always chuckle when people claim we are “anti-science.” Their accusation stems from the fact that they fail to define science properly. There are two categories of science: observational/experimental and historical/origins.
We’ve seen that claim dozens of times from AIG. They don’t like science that discovers things in the past because such discoveries always make Genesis look ridiculous. We’ve discussed their bizarre dichotomy in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, so we won’t waste any time on it.
However, we’re inspired to invent a dichotomy of our own. Did you realize that there is more than one human species living on this planet? You know about Homo sapiens, which means “wise (or reasoning) man.” Those wretched, hell-bound evolutionists claim that H. sapiens is the only human species now alive, but they’re wrong. There’s another human species, dear reader — Homo insipiens, or foolish man. Virtually all creationists are of this other species, and your Curmudgeon now declares that it is professionally unethical to deny it. Okay, back to Georgia’s essay:
This scientist [whose reply Georgia quoted] is clearly mixing the two types of science and what he is actually opposed to is using the truth of God’s Word as a starting point for knowing about the past instead of his own ideas.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
Although he claims that finding “evidence” to counter evolution would make his career as a scientist, it would actually end it, at least as far as the secular world is concerned. Over and over and over again the evidence has been clearly shown to be absolutely consistent with and to confirm the historical science based on God’s Word.
Throwing up yet? Of course you are. And we’re not finished. Ignoring Georgia’s link to an AIG article about “correct scientific predictions” made with creation science, she says:
Yet when scientists such as myself attempt to publish such information in secular scientific journals, speak at secular scientific conferences, or get jobs at secular universities, we are typically prohibited not because of the observational science we have accomplished but because it supports and confirms the historical science based on God’s Word. (Fortunately, creation scientists do have places to publish peer-reviewed scientific research like the Answers Research Journal and others.)
It must be deeply satisfying to be published in Hambo’s own “peer-reviewed” journal. At the end, Georgia refers us to a video of the debate between ol’ Hambo and Bill Nye, and that’s all she has to say. But it was enough for our purposes. You wanted a vomit opportunity, and we gave you one. We are pleased to have provided this service.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.