The Creationist Vomit Show from Seattle


We keep getting email saying: “Hey, Curmy, you haven’t given us a good vomit opportunity lately. How about it?” That’s fair criticism. We haven’t had a good one since Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.

What you’re clamoring for is a really good, let ‘er rip, heavy-duty, all-at-once, mighty heave from way down deep. You want another episode of the Vomit Show from Seattle, which made its pilot debut in: Discovery Institute: Vesuvius of Vomit. We haven’t had one of those shows since The Creationist Vomit Show, No. 1, but that wasn’t from Seattle. So today we’re happy to announce a new episode of the Creationist Vomit Show — on location in Seattle! — hosted by your humble Curmudgeon.

All right, Vomiteers, get ready. Our subject matter comes from the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, and it’s titled How Should We Teach Evolution? Best of all, it was written by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. Here we go!

Good morning, Vomiteers! [*Good morning, Curmudgeon!*] Are you ready for another episode of the Creationist Vomit Show? [*Yes!*]

Okay! We see that everyone in the studio audience is wearing our official green and yellow Vomiteer costume, and you’re all wearing your Vomiteer headgear. That’s great! Now gather ’round as we begin another adventure in Vomit Land — that wonderful place where everyone is a creationist! Casey says, with bold font added by us:

In recent posts [links omitted], I’ve considered some of the misinformation directed at students from Darwin-lobbying groups like the National Center for Science Education. Having answered false claims by evolution advocates in the context of science education, it’s fair to ask now: How should evolution be taught? Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture has made its position clear on many occasions in the past, but since media and advocacy groups continue to advance misunderstandings and distortions, it can’t hurt to say it once more.

[*Audience squirms and squeals with delight*] Great introduction! Then Casey tells us:

Darwinian evolution should be fully and completely taught in public schools, and schools need to teach more about evolution, not less. Unfortunately, most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism. This makes for bad science education. It doesn’t teach students how to think, just what to think. Instead, schools should teach about both the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories and let students critically evaluate the arguments and evidence in this debate.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! On with the show:

Teaching students in such a balanced, objective manner turns classroom instruction away from indoctrination and toward genuine education. Critically analyzing Darwinian evolution teaches students more about the facts of biology and produces scientifically minded students with good critical thinking skills. As Charles Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species: “a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Discoveroids have used that mined quote before — see Ball State Imbroglio: John West Is Angry. Casey continues:

Science education theorists agree that students learn science best when they learn about arguments for and against a particular concept.

“Science education theorists”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is like watching an Ancient Aliens show on the misnamed History channel, babbling about the ancient astronaut hypothesis, where the narrator keeps saying: “Ancient astronaut theorists believe …” Here’s more from Casey:

Science education is about teaching students the facts of biology, but also about teaching them how to think like scientists. When students are told that Darwinian evolution is a “settled theory” or that there “is no controversy over evolution,” that not only misinforms them about debates taking place among scientists, but it fails to teach students how to use critical thinking on these important scientific questions.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! One last excerpt:

There is a vibrant debate over Darwinian evolution taking place in the scientific community, and the scientists who have signed the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List invite you to investigate it.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!: We’ve written about that a few times before, here, for example.

That’s it, Vomiteers — wasn’t it fun? [*Yes!*] Now, for the climax of the show, here’s the moment you’ve all been waiting for. Your Curmudgeon will pull this magic chain and release a flood of creationist vomit upon the studio audience. Ready? [*Yes!*] Here it comes! [*Curmudgeon pulls chain. The overhead vat releases its accumulation through vents in the ceiling. Whoosh! Plop! Bluuuuhhh!*]

Wasn’t that great? [*Yes!*] Okay, Vomiteers, you can take off your costumes now. We’ll let you know when the next episode is available. And if you don’t yet have your official Vomiteer costume, be sure to visit our gift shop.

Copyright © 2015. 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

21 responses to “The Creationist Vomit Show from Seattle

  1. Intelligent Design is, of course, not mentioned. I wonder why? Perhaps the DI is opposed to a critical examination of the “evidence”, if any, for ID…

    I wonder how the DI would react if a legislature introduced an academic freedom bill which in addition to requiring teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution, also required instruction in the strengths and weaknesses of competing ideas such as intelligent design creationism and YEC creationism.

  2. Science isn’t done that way, like when Bishops vote for what book to include in the Bible. This isn’t like a debate over raising the minimum wage, where you evaluate “both sides of the argument”. There isn’t two sides, there’s only the way things are, and the way things are not.

  3. michaelfugate

    I would love to show how God and Biblical creationism went from pre-scientific explanations to being totally discredited as explanations of anything by scientists – most of whom were Christians of some sort. It would be fun.

  4. Derek Freyberg

    To the extent there are perceived (or even imagined, as from the feverish mind of Casey) weaknesses in the theory of evolution, I think it’s useful to discuss them if only so that the students can realize how well the theory hangs together. But this may well be a topic for a relatively advanced class: you don’t teach calculus to third-graders.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    I’m all for the academic freedom bills, if they include a provision to include a warning notice for students. This notice would have to be the same one at the top of this post!

  6. michaelfugate

    Not to mention, there is no coordinated opposition. You have, like the last two posts on AiG, contradictory and incoherent criticisms – it is apologetics as in whatever one believes will glorify God in a given situation. God provides uniform natural laws except when God miraculously intervenes. The antis oppose natural selection or embrace it within species – the same with speciation with baramins. It is hard to oppose something on scientific grounds when you haven’t ever done any science.

  7. Bloosh!

  8. Casey Luskin imitates Yoda’s style of speech: “…most biology classrooms teach a one-sided, pro-Darwin-only curriculum that censors serious any scientific critique of neo-Darwinism.”

    I admit I make typos and other such mistakes while writing, but I’m not being paid for my efforts. But “…censors serious any scientific critique…”? Was Casey trying to say “censors any serious scientific critique”? If he’s trying to imply that “Intelligent Design” is a “serious scientific critique” of evolution, he’s just plain wrong. As so many have pointed out before, “intelligent Design” is a religious objection to evolution, not a “scientific critique”.

    Casey, your writings make a mockery of religion.

  9. Mike Elzinga

    If my experiences when giving talks on ID/creationism to church groups back in the 1970s, 80s and 90 are any indication, ID/creationist should be careful what they wish for.

    When putting up their claims, misconceptions, and misrepresentations of science side-by-side with the real science and scientific concepts, I found that the church folks were dismayed by the dishonesty of the ID/creationists.

    Nothing has changed in 50 years. You can go over to the Unimaginably Dense website at this very moment and see them riding their grotesque second law of thermodynamics argument against evolution and the origin of life. They are using exactly the same arguments that Morris and Gish used; they don’t even know their own intellectual pedigree.

    An instructor can be fired for incompetence if he/she teaches misconceptions and misrepresentations of science in the public schools. And, because these particular misconceptions and misrepresentations of science are so characteristic of and unique to ID/creationism, it is easy to make the connections of this “incompetence” to sectarian socio/political motives.

  10. docbill1351

    The problem with “teaching ID” is that there’s nothing to teach. ID is one long argument against evolution. If you recall in Dover the science teachers balked at even reading a statement about ID because they said it violated their oath of ethics. The only ID “textbook” is Pandas and it’s just a warmed-over creationist book.

    The Tooters know they can’t get a foothold in the university system. By this time students are older, more educated and less susceptible to idiotic creationist arguments. But in high school, students are just getting introduced formally to biology, chemistry and physics. It’s the ideal time to seed doubt and muddle minds, which is the real goal of the Disco Tute. They need a whole new generation of Jim Inhoffs to keep the gravy train rolling.

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    And where does ID stop and naturalistic processes take over? Does the Designer just design the DNA for a species, and then let natural process take over, or is the DNA for each living thing reviewed and edited and published by the Creator? Did the Creator stop thousands or millions of years ago, or just up until HIV was created? Or last week?

    Kind of another variation of the micro/macro-evolution mambo. But these questions of mine, I hope, are simple tests that make ID impossible to take into a school as a scientific construct.

  12. docbill1351 says:

    The problem with “teaching ID” is that there’s nothing to teach.

    But it would be very easy. At the end of every chapter of every science book, just add one more sentence: “And some imagine that it’s all because of the intelligent designer.”

  13. @Curm

    Bravo, you made me giggle out loud.

  14. anevilmeme, you’re a good Vomiteer.

  15. As far as this important “critical thinking” and “teaching both sides”, I’d like to know where else in the primary and secondary education curriculum we allocate time to either.

    I don’t recall being taught the “strengths and weaknesses” of differential calculus…..or even for The Germ Theory of Disease or mitosis or photosynthesis theory. I thought the job of a teacher in K through 12 (in the USA) was to deliver the knowledge of previous generations to that next generation. If teachers had to always present astrology along with astronomy, homeopathy along with medical science, reading entrails along with anatomy, and …..well … get the idea.

    And I have never met a teacher in the public school who complained that they had a lot of left-over time in the classroom and needed something new to fill that open time slot.

    One thing is for sure: If ever the public schools in the USA began teaching the “pros and cons” of “creation science”, there would be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth. Those “academic freedom” advocates would suddenly start wishing that they had left well enough alone.

    For several years I experimented with this challenge on various forums where the “teach both sides” and “teach the pros and cons of all positions” were active: “Please post a sample syllabus, or even just a summary, of what you would teach 8th graders concerning: (a) the pros/cons of The Theory of Evolution, and (b) the pros/cons of The Theory of Special Creation [which, of course, would first need to be defined and published by someone!]

    Not once did anyone even TRY to provide even a brief summary of what they SUPPOSEDLY wanted taught in our public schools. It is merely a political banner around which they can rally.

    In fact, I had many who openly admitted the disingenuousness of their proposal: “There is zero evidence for evolution so I would have no ‘pros’ to present. Teaching the evolution side would be easy.”

    So for many, they don’t mean “teach both sides” at all.

  16. There isnt enuff Diet Mtn. Dew in the world to wash the taste of that article from my mind.

  17. I am totally delighted to see another vomiteer article.
    Casey ! AIG wants to fight you over the big chunks!!!!
    The Great Santini salutes you and your mushroom condensed soup
    wannabes. You guys are turning out the real stuff.

  18. ID’ers would look a lot less foolish if they were able to produce a list of “scientists” who support their ideas who are actually scientists in relevant fields of research. Dragging in mechanical engineers, computer designers and weathermen (pardon me, “meteorologists”) just makes it look as though . . . well, as though they’re desperate.

  19. If there are so many smart people who think that there is something better than evolution, why haven’t they been able to tell us anything about it, after these 150 years?

  20. (a) I hope you make your creation links no-follow; I sometimes (as inthis case) want to check out the full horror for myself, and don’t want to boost their hit count
    (b) to speak of “pro-Darwin biology” is like speaking of “pro-Dalton chemistry”. NO ONE teaches Darwin’s version of biology (he didn’t know about genes or mutation, for a start), like NO ONE teaches Dalton’s version of chemistry (in which water is HO and Avogadro’s Hypothesis is therefore flat out wrong). To quote what Genie Scott imagines Darwin would say to today’s creationists, “Haven’t you been paying any attention for the last 156 years?”

  21. Paul Braterman says: “I hope you make your creation links no-follow”

    I usually do. By the way, you look very dashing in your Vomiteer costume.