WorldNetDaily: Evolution Is Elitist Ideology

Buffoon Award

The blaring sirens and flashing lights of the Drool-o-tron™ alerted us to this one. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND) — the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. As you know, WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.

The Drool-o-tron™ had locked our computer onto this article at WND’s website: Evolution: Science or elitist ideology?, which has almost 60 comments.

It was written by Alan Keyes, a Republican candidate for US President in 1996, 2000, and 2008, and a candidate for the US Senate from even before then. Most famously, he ran against — and lost to — Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate election of 2004. He is also Honorary Chairman of the creationist website, RenewAmerica. Our last post about one of his articles in WND was WND: Theocratic Lunacy from Alan Keyes.

Here are some excerpts from Keyes’ new article, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

This week I read a story about Ben Carson’s response to a question about “creationism” that led me to ponder the quisling GOP’s abandonment of the elegant words and logic with which the American Declaration of Independence establishes the political relevance of the authority of the Creator God.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! How wrong can one sentence be? Carson recently indicated that he’s an old-Earth creationist — not a young-Earther — which Keys says is an abandonment of the Declaration’s “establishment” of “the political relevance of the authority of the Creator God.” What can we say? First, one kind of creationist is essentially as whacked as another; and second, the Declaration “established” no such thing. Jefferson’s religiosity was dubious at best, and his rhetorical statement that we are endowed with rights by our “creator” was a reference to his immediately prior mention of the laws of nature. Aside from that, the Declaration is not even the law!

Keys is off to a good start. We’ll keep going — as long as we can stand it. He says:

Though the GOP’s quisling leaders pay lip-service to God, they act as if they embrace the notion that respect for God’s authority in and over His creation can play no part in America’s political judgments and decisions. This despite the fact that the republican form of government ordained, established and required by the American people in their Constitution for the United States derives its legitimate character from the premises of Creator-endowed right, rights and liberty laid out in the American Declaration of Independence.

Aaaargh!! We debunked all of that theocratic nonsense in Is America a “Christian Nation”? Let’s read on:

The alleged pragmatism that leads to the rejection of the Creator’s authority with respect to human activities is perhaps the most definitive behavioral trait of those aligned with the elitist faction.

Yes, those accursed elitists reject the blessings of theocracy. Something must be done about this! Okay, here comes the rant against evolution:

It manifests itself in their reflexive presumption that the dogma of evolution actually has an empirical scientific basis. This despite the fact that its conclusions rely on the imaginative reconstruction of what they claim are random events, which constitute a history that cannot be verified by actual scientifically rigorous observation. In support of their account of these events they cannot even cite the first or second hand accounts of intelligent and informed human witnesses, such as those on which human historians rely.

Every sentence is a cognitive nightmare. Keyes continues:

As a species of history the dogma of evolution relies exclusively on the testimony of natural objects. Yet those presenting the evidence insist that the multi-dimensional pictographs in which this history is recorded (fossils and the environments in which they are found) are entirely random expressions. Nonetheless they demand that their imaginatively coherent translation of this otherwise incoherent gibberish be accepted as a “scientific” account of something, instead of being seen for what it is – a wonderfully inventive fiction … . In any reasonable court of law this would be peremptorily rejected as leading the witness, or giving testimony instead of inquiring after it.

This is painful. Very painful. We’re only halfway through, but we can’t go on. But you can click over there to read it all –if you really want to. We’re done.

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

20 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Evolution Is Elitist Ideology

  1. Our Curmudgeon manfully proclaims

    We’ll keep going — as long as we can stand it.

    You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

  2. Is Ellis Washington ghostwriting for Alan Keyes? Because that is hot garbage of the Washington variety. Only a reference to Hitler is missing.

    I have to admit, I had to look up “quisling,” and I did only because he used it twice. Alan (or Ellis?) must have a “Word of the Day” desk calendar!

  3. Wow, this was a lot of drool.

  4. Eh? This surprises anybody?

    I’d be amazed if a creationist would come off of “Eyewitnesses are the best evidence”. Better than evidence, actually, since humans are fallible, but not those who agree with what the creationists say.

  5. It was written by Alan Keyes, a Republican candidate for US President in 1996, 2000, and 2008

    *sigh* If only he were among the current crop. He’d definitely improve the standard.

  6. michaelfugate

    US in that sentence stands for undoubtedly? unimpeachably? universally? stupid

  7. The alleged pragmatism that leads to the rejection of the Creator’s authority with respect to human activities is perhaps the most definitive behavioral trait of those aligned with the elitist faction. . . .

    It manifests itself in their reflexive presumption that the dogma of evolution actually has an empirical scientific basis. This despite the fact that its conclusions rely on the imaginative reconstruction of what they claim are random events, which constitute a history that cannot be verified by actual scientifically rigorous observation. In support of their account of these events they cannot even cite the first or second hand accounts of intelligent and informed human witnesses, such as those on which human historians rely.

    But human archaeologists don’t. And if there actually were “informed human witnesses” to evolution, they’d have to be immortals or time travelers.

    I notice, by the way, that Keyes doesn’t worry his tinfoil-hatted head about the lack of such witnesses to the creation as described in Genesis. “God’s word” is enough, even though no book of the Bible is identified as directly authored by God. (There’s mumbo-jumbo about “inspiration,” burning bushes and divine stone tablets instead.)

  8. Well, evolution is elitist in the sense that you do have to study it a bit to understand it. Apparently the minimum threshold of knowledge is too high for Alan Keyes and other ID chaps.

  9. Stephen Kennedy

    I tried to read the whole thing but I just felt like I was trying to cut my way through an impenetrable jungle with a very dull machete that could not cut anything. It is amazing how many words and sentences can be used and still not come up with any thing of substance. This has got to be one of the most annoying creationist screeds I have ever run into.

  10. @Mark Germano – No need to feel Hitler deprived, he shows up in the comments. Our man starts out with a positively Rockwellian vision of the days of yore:

    “In our grandparents day–heck, even our parents–young men would take their rifles to school hanging in the back window of their pick-up truck for rifle team practice after school.”

    But then, the damn liberals start showing up between the amber waves of grain, with predictable results:

    “Only a return to BIBLICAL STANDARDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS will refute the prideful, insane narcissists within the ranks of the Socialists–and ALL Socialism is National Socialism at the end of the day…, yeah, as in NAZISM– from serving their sinful nature and the demonic spiritual entities they serve.”

    It is, I gather, taken as given that evolution = socialism.
    Also, you might think about this, if you dare:

    “Liberals ALWAYS want to dialogue. If they can get their opponents to dialogue they have already achieved a degree of victory.”

    Gosh, now why would that be?

  11. @Stephen Kennedy-
    I agree with your assessment. Annoying. To the extent that I felt that it was intended to be deliberately annoying. Certainly it was not meant to be informative. Or even persuasive.

  12. The whole truth

    There’s nothing more elitist than religious people. Using an imaginary, so-called ‘God’ and associated terroristic fairy tales as the “authority” (weapon) by which to scare-stifle-threaten-rob-rape-manipulate-deprive-indoctrinate-control-dominate-abuse-murder-conquer (‘Lord over’) others is as elitist (narcissistic) as it’s possible to be.

  13. Yet those presenting the evidence insist that the multi-dimensional pictographs in which this history is recorded (fossils and the environments in which they are found) are entirely random expressions.

    Let me guess Keyes came to this conclusion based on his own laborious scientific inquiry into the fossil record, right? Yeah right, if doesn’t fit the neo-con narrative of “gawd and Murica” it’s automatically false. They are so intellectually lazy these people but I also did like the use of quisling. However; using it twice was once again a sign of laziness.

  14. I do wonder what exactly would be entailed if one were to “embrace the notion that respect for God’s authority in and over His creation”?

    Maybe cases such as this: Killed teenager in New York ‘wanted to leave church’?

  15. People keep mentioning quisling in ways that make it seem like a bad thing to do. Intriguing. How does it work? I’ve never quisled, as far as I know.

  16. Stephen Kennedy says: “It is amazing how many words and sentences can be used and still not come up with any thing of substance. This has got to be one of the most annoying creationist screeds I have ever run into.”

    I dimly remember him from one of his Presidential campaigns. It was a debate — or maybe an interview. He has a large vocabulary and he’s very glib. He babbles out long, complicated sentences, and he does it rapidly. But it’s gibberish. He never really says anything. I suppose it impresses a drooling audience.

  17. Say what you want about what the word “creator” means in the Declaration, my creators are my mother and father.

  18. The “Religious Ones” make a big deal about “Creator” being mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

    So what? The Declaration was not incorporated into the Constitution, which is our governing document. In fact, any mention of “Creator” was deliberately left out of the Constitution.

  19. @Andy-
    Thank you very much.
    That points out an distinction which is far too often ignored.
    It should be obvious that the Declaration of Independence makes no mention of the creation of Homo sapiens. (Or any population or taxon.)
    “All men are created equal” is a statement of republicanism: that one’s ancestry makes no difference in one’s standing.

  20. @retiredsciguy-
    The “Creator” of the Declaration, and references to “Nature and Nature’s God”, “Providence” and other such language are compatible with a typical 18th century deism.
    Ironically, so is the language of Intelligent Design.