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.