Creationist Wisdom #711: Pepper Is Back!

Today’s letter-to-the-editor brings us back to The Citizen of Fayetteville, Georgia. A recent letter they published inspired us to write #700: Evolution’s Problems.

Their headline this time is Jumping up and down about Darwinian Theory, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his — or maybe her — full name. As with the previous letter, the writer’s first name is Pepper, and we still don’t know if that’s male or female. Excerpts from the letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Pepper first mentions a criticism published in response to his (or her) original letter:

In response to the eight arguments I presented against Darwinian Theory, Jim Bock suggested I read a book. When time permits I will read the book he suggests, though with zero expectation it will have the remotest impact on any one of those eight arguments.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s the letter from Jim Bock: Standing up for the theory of evolution. He refers to Pepper as “Mr.” so we’ll follow that example. Okay, back to Pepper’s new letter:

Eugenie Scott (director of the National Center for Science Education) said, ”There are NO weaknesses in the theory of Evolution.” Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who doesn’t believe in Darwin is “ignorant, stupid or insane.”

Yes, and they’re not wrong. But Pepper disagrees. Let’s read on:

When Richard Sternberg printed a single, peer-reviewed article questioning Darwinism, it resulted in extensive, furious and personal retaliation from the science power brokers.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a reference to the Sternberg peer review controversy. As we observed before, Pepper’s “thinking” seems to be mostly inspired by “information” found at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog. He continues:

Your high school students’ textbook does not discuss Darwin as a theory with pros and cons; it is presented as a scientific fact that explains every feature of life and for which there are no issues or challenges. When Kansas, among others, wanted to officially recognize there were questions about Darwinian Theory, the outrage from the science power brokers was off the charts. The recommendation was for colleges to not accept kids who had graduated from any Kansas high school.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a reference to The Kansas Crazy Days. Pepper is still upset that lunacy didn’t prevail. Here’s more:

As one Chinese scientist noted, “In China we can’t question the government, in the U.S. you can’t question Darwinism.” This is demonstrated in the heavy price that is paid by anyone who does so.

It won’t surprise you to learn that the Discoveroids are the source of that quote too. It’s from Stephen Meyer in this 2006 article: Talk of the Times: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Moving along:

The evidence against Darwin is intellectually honest, it’s powerful and it’s growing with every gene that gets sequenced. I will be very surprised if 10 years from now the science community is not talking about Darwin in the past tense.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That reminds us of one of the earliest posts in our humble blog, about more than 160 years of predictions of The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Pepper is a gold mind of creationist oldie-goldies. One final excerpt:

I honestly don’t even mind Darwinian Theory being presented in the science classroom; there are many evangelicals who accept it without issue. It’s just when the theory is presented as a dogmatic assertion and the pseudo-scientific worldview forcibly suppresses any opposition that it proves itself unworthy of our students. Go ahead and teach about it, just tell the truth about it.

All Pepper wants is The Truth. Great letter!

Copyright © 2016. 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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #711: Pepper Is Back!

  1. Unusually, most (3 out of 4, to date) of the comments at the site are from people as ignorant as popping Pepper.

  2. There is the old saying about salesmen or politicians, that you can tell when they are lying by when their lips are moving.
    That may not be true, but a sure-fire sign is when they tell you “honestly”.

  3. I can’t see or read any of that twaddle without wanting to add “citation &/or source needed” after every one of their assertions. Thank you, Curmie, for indicating where most of their “facts” come from, as I could never bring myself to surf over to those sites.

  4. “Your high school students’ textbook does not discuss Darwin as a theory with pros and cons…”

    Now Charles Darwin is only a theory? Have they no shame?

    Though, I’m more interested in what ID proponents think are the pros and/or strengths of evolution. Like Pepper, the DI is always going on about “strengths and weaknesses,” but never elaborates.

  5. The Imminent Demise of Evolution is as imminent as the Imminent Second Coming of a certain character who was crucified about 2000 years ago.

  6. Our Curmudgeon notes:

    …the writer’s first name is Pepper, and we still don’t know if that’s male or female.

    Whichever it is, (s)he doubtless identifies as an idiot….

  7. Being in the USA gives you the right to be and remain as stoopid as you wish!

  8. Pepper wrote, ” I will be very surprised if 10 years from now the science community is not talking about Darwin in the past tense.” Actually, scientists and historians write about Darwin in the past tense already. That’s probably because he died in 1882.

  9. When Kansas, among others, wanted to officially recognize there were questions about Darwinian Theory, the outrage from the science power brokers was off the charts.

    That’s because the Kansas State Board of Education seriously considered redefining science to include supernatural explanations of natural phenomena as legitimate, plainly with an eye toward jamming creationism into public school science classes.

    That goes a long way beyond merely “officially [recognizing] there [are] questions about Darwinian theory.”

  10. The Citizen appears to have disabled comments, possibly because a non-reactionary has dared to contradict Pepper’s garbage.

    One of the reactionary comments that got through (and it was the reason I signed up to the Citizen site) was this, in response to a suggestion that, unless Pepper produced some actual contra-evolution evidence, s/he was simply pushing an agenda:

    I smell the agenda of someone wishing to speak the truth about a flawed theory, [Oh, clever snark.] Just as surely as when someone points out the Hundreds of Lies from Hillary Clinton yet refrains from promoting another candidate, the agenda is spreading the Facts about the Liar Clinton .

    from JessieJames1847. (Note “Jessie.”) The person is apparently a local vicar, to judge by a reference from another commenter.

    It alarms me that a supposed moral arbiter of the community should so blithely perpetrate partisan falsehoods. A quick trip to Politifact reveals that, of recent national politicians (including all presidential candidates of both major parties), Clinton is actually the most truthful — a result that startled me, because I’m not one of her natural supporters. Even more surprising, the nearest to her was Jeb Bush, followed by Obama and then Sanders. Absolute bottom of the pile for truthfulness was, of course, Donald Trump.

    (You can quibble slightly with the results. I’m assuming PantsonFire = 5, False = 4, etc.; any system like PantsonFire = 10, False = 6, etc., like the Olympic medal scoring, would actually benefit Clinton, because she’s told notably fewer PantsonFires than any of the others.)

    It’s distressing that the same denial of reality that’s being deployed by the creationists, the antivaxxers, the climate deniers and all the other jolly buffoons right down to Blood Moons promoter Joseph Farah is being allowed to dictate the narrative of our social discourse. The national welfare is too important for it to be determined by flat lies. This is not purely a rightwing sin; I remember all the faux-outrage on the left when George W. Bush remarked that he sometimes wished the country were a dictatorship with himself as dictator. I despise the man but, as I’ve vociferously pointed out all over the place, in this instance he was cracking, you know, the joke.

    Sorry: waffling on. Bogus and dishonest thinking, in all their guises — not just creationism — seem equally worth beating back against.