Creationist Wisdom #496: Strange Analogy

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Journal Star of Lincoln, Nebraska, the state capital. The letter is titled Creationism should be taught. There’s a comments section at the end, with 10 comments so far.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t use his full name. His first name is John, and he also wrote a different letter a couple of days ago Why not creationism? Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

It’s amazing how the country slowly caves into gay marriage but will not cave into allowing for creationism to be taught in public schools.

That’s the “strange analogy” our post title promises. It may be the craziest argument we’ve ever seen for creationism in public schools. Then John says:

These are all moral issues. Even schools teaching “be kind to one another” is a moral issue.

We never had a course in kindness. Perhaps that explains things. Let’s read on:

Don’t give me the “separation of church and state,” as cosmic-evolution (the big bang) is a religion. The liberals want a one way street, yet they’re always talking about “fairness.”

Yeah — if those “liberals” can teach their big bang religion, then John says we should teach his religion too. Let’s be fair! He continues:

This whole creation vs. evolution (cosmic evolution, macro-evolution) talk isn’t about us vs. them. It’s about starting assumptions (for both sides) and viable ways to interpret the facts.

Yes, and creationism is one of those “viable ways.” Here’s more:

Teaching one side of an issue is indoctrination, teaching two sides is education. Do not let your kids be indoctrinated. Get involved with the public school boards.

John is right. Reality is only one side. We must also teach un-reality. Hey — we allow gay marriage, don’t we? Moving along:

There is still hope for this country. I see a glimpse of it in Texas, and I’m not even from there.

They’d love you in Texas, John. Another excerpt:

A revolution (non-violent) starts with truth. The National Center for Science Education will be scared of this letter but so what?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And now we come to the end:

The truth shall set you free. God bless you.

Does John really think he’s said anything coherent? Yeah, he probably does.

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

23 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #496: Strange Analogy

  1. Good luck with John getting set free by the truth. I doubt he’d recognize the truth if it smacked him upside his head!

  2. Meanwhile, one of Nebraska’s favorite sovereign citizen sons, Paul John Hansen of Omaha, is making his way, under the custody of U.S. Marshals, to Pensacola to stand trial alongside Kent Hovind in January; on conspiracy, mail fraud, and criminal contempt of court charges relating to Hansen’s involvement with Hovind.

    Hovind has been mounting a “media” blitz from the Santa Rosa county jail here he is being held pending trial. He’s had his friends broadcast about a dozen telephone interviews in the last couple of weeks or so.

  3. It already did smack him in the head and he’s suffering a concussion and episodes of delirium as evidenced by his LTTE. Sad, but he needs help.

  4. Poor John, completely unaware that he submitted a good example of why we need secular government. Do any of the secular government haters even remotely understand that if there was no mystical minded exceptionalism, there wouldn’t need to be secular governments to protect John from others like John?

  5. It’s amazing how the country slowly caves into gay marriage but will not cave into allowing for creationism to be taught in public schools.

    Apples and oranges. Gay marriage is a social custom slowly becoming acceptable; creationism is a belief about the natural world, and one without a shred of credible evidence in its support. I don’t find it amazing at all that society is “caving in” to the former.

    By the way, since “John” insists on this comparison but almost certainly regards gay marriage as evil and perverse, is he admitting that creationism is evil and perverse but that he supports it anyway?

  6. Aha, I foreseepredict prophesy that the different starting assumptions meme will form the legal front for the next school board lawsuit. Shall we place bets on which year it will occur?

  7. Speaking of caves, many paleontologic discoveries of the post Cretaceous, especially vertebrates, have been made in caves, sinkholes and caverns. However, I am not aware of any gay marriages being performed in a cave. Anyone ?

  8. Eric Lipps says:

    By the way, since “John” insists on this comparison but almost certainly regards gay marriage as evil and perverse, is he admitting that creationism is evil and perverse but that he supports it anyway?

    I think he saying that if you can force him to tolerate something like gay marriage, then you should be fair and accept something that you people think is equally repulsive.

  9. This is another case where the title of the letter alone warrants a comment. I’ll read the letter, SC’s posts and above comments, but since I haven’t yet, forgive me if this has been mentioned to John already (and I can’t imagine why not), but if he wants creationism taught he needs to complain to the Discoveroids before whining to anyone else.

  10. I’ve no doubt that letter-scribbling John would describe himself as a “Conservative,” as do so many others of his ilk.

    But that is a dreadful and unwarrented calumny on ‘Conservatism’ as it is understood in the rest of the world–where the views expressed in such a letter as this one are properly identified for what they are, viz., unpardonably Reactionary.

  11. SC: “I think he saying that if you can force him to tolerate something like gay marriage, then you should be fair and accept something that you people think is equally repulsive.”

    Note the irony: Nearly everyone who finds creationism repulsive has no problem with students learning it during the 99+% of waking hours that they’re not learning biology. The only thing that they are “forcing” on people like John is to accept, for that measly <1% of time, science that has earned the right to be taught, does not misrepresent evolution, and does not censor the refutations of those misrepresentation, as “creationism” and ID always do. Oh, and they’re not “forcing” John to marry a guy.

    Anyway, I refuse to answer a survey just to read John’s letters, so I’ll probably miss the part where he elaborates on his particular theory and supports it on its own merits (no I won’t replace any of your irony meters). And I won’t be able to get an idea of where John lies on the “scammed” to “scammer” continuum. Though I do know that the latter often invoke irrelevant topics such as gay marriage because it distracts the discussion from the fatal flaws and contradictions within “creationism.” I note that BlackWatch above briefly mentions the Cretaceous period (145 to 66 million years ago). I for one am much more interested in what John has to say about that than what he has to say about gay marriage. But I realize that I’m in a small minority among “Darwinists.” I’d be especially interested to know if he’d be content with Behe’s “~4 billion year ago ancestral cell” hypothesis as the “creationism” that gets to be taught along side evolution. And if not, why not.

  12. Could you imagine this guy’s letter if two gay biologists got married? If there is a kind, caring and just god, he would totally make this happen.

  13. Mark Germano: “Could you imagine this guy’s letter if two gay biologists got married? If there is a kind, caring and just god, he would totally make this happen.”

    Huh? That would give him just what he wants, a perfect “told you so!” moment. No, what he really needed was to have all 22 comments (what I saw at the time) from science-literate devout Christians criticizing his pathetic attempt to link gay marriage with evolution and saying: “What part of ‘convergence, neither sought nor fabricated’ do you not understand?”

  14. Wow, that incredibly ignorant creationist got me to agree with Harbison. The world is a surprising place.

  15. It looks like the letter writer covered nearly all of Hambo’s talking points: Conflate Astronomy (Big Bang) with Biology (Evolution), talk about different underlying assumptions, Evolution is a religion and indoctrination of children with a secular viewpoint.

    Hambo is an idiot but unfortunately there seem to be people out there that hang on his every word and repeat AIG drivel in any forum they can.

  16. @Stephen Kennedy

    Prime examples of motivated reasoning.

  17. Charles Deetz ;)

    What really would a class on creationism be like in a science setting? After reading Genesis … What? There is no science to teach, unless you want to start refuting it.

  18. @Charles Deetz 😉
    Are the Bible colleges prepared for teaching and for being certified by the states, for all of the demand? You certainly can’t trust all of those liberal universities to train the teachers. What if, for example, it were taught by a Catholic or some other non-Christian like a Mormon or Seventh Day Adventist? Who knows what strange things they would teach?

  19. “The National Center for Science Education will be scared of this letter but so what?” “Scared” is not exactly the word that I would use.

  20. Glenn Branch says:

    “Scared” is not exactly the word that I would use.

    Yeah, sure. John has you guys all figured out.

  21. Teaching one side of an issue is indoctrination, teaching two sides is education.

    He’s got us there. After all, in all of my math course, the teachers would present the textbook view and then ask for volunteers to teach “the other side”. In calculus, we started with Newton’s calculus and then gave equal time for Leibniz. ……but come to think of it, it was essentially the same. Hmmm.

    I wonder what “John” would say was the “other side” of the various laws of physics and the stuff in my chemistry text in high school. What would he give for examples of the “other view” that was taught? I wonder if anybody has asked John about that.

    High physical education had an alternate view, but it was rarely mentioned in class. But “couch potato” probably is a way to refer to it.

  22. @Professor Tertius
    WRT sports, there is no consideration given to alternatives to what are arbitrary rules. A rules panel decides what is legal one year becomes illegal the next. In golf and track, the lowest score wins, in basketball and football, the highest score wins.
    Anyway, when it comes to alternatives to science, there are not just two sides. There are alternative sides which have as much validity as one another: Young Earth, Old Earth, Flat Earth, Fixed Earth – and let us not forget the Big Top, which has no opinion except that there’s got to be something better than evolution.

  23. Very much off topic, but I can’t help myself … It Scotland it is being argued that “Banning Creationism Lessons is Dangerous”:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/banning-creationism-lessons-is-dangerous-warn-headteachers.25925821

    The guy arguing that creationism should NOT be banned is one Ken Cunningham, “general secretary of School Leaders Scotland (SLS), which represents secondary headteachers.”

    Ken Cunningham? KEN Cunning-HAM?

    Hey, I want to see a picture of this guy! Could he be someone we know, operating under a most “cunning” pseudonym when he goes undercover to do God’s work in Scotland?

    Probably not, since that other guy is busy building his Ark, but you have to wonder …