Creative Challenge #32: Positive Creationist News

Once again, we’re in the middle of another news lull. The first time it happened we wrote Intelligent Designer on Holiday, in which we attributed the quiet period to the fact that the Intelligent Designer had temporarily become romantically involved with the Tooth Fairy.

A year later we wrote Reflections During a Creationist Ceasefire, in which we speculated that the Discovery Institute might be losing its ability to command press attention. In the next lull we wrote Intelligent Designer on Holiday, #2, and speculated about what the creationists were dreaming up for their next campaign. A few months later we wrote Intelligent Designer on Holiday, #3. Then, almost two years ago, there was Intelligent Designer on Holiday, #4. We used that occasion to present a Creative Challenge, asking what new promotion the creationists could do to generate news, and we’ve been presenting Challenges in subsequent news lulls. Now we have another.

We attribute the lack of news to the fact that creationists have nothing new to talk about. Ol’ Hambo has his museum and his ark, but although he may be able to keep his “ministry” going, it’s not going anywhere and he probably knows it. The Discoveroids have failed at everything they’ve ever attempted. All of the goals they set for themselves in their wedge strategy are unfulfilled. They have no published research in any credible journal, no credibility in the academic world, and they’ve never won in court. Except for Louisiana and Tennessee, their Academic Freedom bills have failed everywhere. The track record of creation science is indistinguishable from that of astrology.

Today’s challenge is for you to suggest something — anything! — creationists (either the bible type or the Discoveroids), could do to get their activities in the news. We’re not looking for a scandal. That sort of thing is always possible, and we’d be delighted if it were to happen, but that’s not what we’re looking for. The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

What could give creationists positive press coverage?

You know the rules: You may enter the contest as many times as you wish, but you must avoid profanity, vulgarity, childish anatomical analogies, etc. Also, avoid slanderous statements about individuals. Feel free to comment on the entries submitted by others — with praise, criticism, or whatever — but you must do so tastefully.

There may not be a winner of this contest, but if there is, your Curmudgeon will decide, and whenever we get around to it we’ll announce who the winner is. There is no tangible prize — as always in life’s great challenges, the accomplishment is its own reward. We now throw open the comments section, dear reader. Go for it!

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

18 responses to “Creative Challenge #32: Positive Creationist News

  1. Endorsements from David Duke and Vladimir Putin; apparently, that would play well with the Creationists’ target demographic…

  2. Really finding Noah’s Ark?
    An organism with the 10 commandments encoded in its junk DNA?

  3. Derek Freyberg

    The Klinkleklapper publicly converts to Hamsterism and goes to work as publicist for AIG.

  4. “Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”

    That would be pretty impressive.

  5. Either Ken Ham or David Klinghoffer digging a Cambrian rabbit from his backyard.

  6. An actual first-rate scientist endorsing creationism?

  7. Genuine human remains dating from the Jurassic? (Personally, if such remains were found I’d see them as proof of time travel before I’d take them as evidence for creationism–but that’s just me.)

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    DNA analysis of of the Zika virus indicating it has no relation with other viruses. Thus creation by god is likely cause. Good job god creating a dangerous virus!

  9. A reputable scientist publishes a peer-reviewed paper in a real scientific journal describing and documenting a real, contiguous in-one-piece fossil with chimaeric elements intact and undeniable. A vertebrate hexapod. A mammal with gills. A minotaur. Any animal that performs its own photosynthesis. Any multi-celled life-form whatsoever combining two different physical structures that are otherwise observed to develop only after the separation of the clades, that is, a life-form that must be classified as belonging in both.

  10. robert van bakel

    Absolutely f***ing bang up good job SC. Those toe rags in the creationist wings are f***ing tossers. Keep up the great work you bunch of fine buggers and buggerets:)
    Too much? I mean every word.

  11. It would help the ID folks if they explained to us how and when the Intelligent Designer created all those irreducable complex systems that mutation and natural selection could never have produced.
    Did it visit earth every couple of million years with a team of highly skilled technicians to perform all sorts of genetic engineering? Did he just ‘will’ it and it happened?
    Really helpfull would be the remains of a UFO in deposits roughly 230 million years old with blueprints for the engineering of the reptile-genome and of the mammal-genome.
    That would convince me.

  12. Damn, the commenters here are good. You have already covered everything I could have thought of.

    Of course we don’t expect to find the 10 commandments, or anything else conclusive, in the DNA. As Christians have repeatedly explained, God will not make his existence undeniable because that would leave no room for faith.

  13. @Eddie Janssen
    See this 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer
    The Development Hypothesis

  14. Caveat up front: By “positive” I mean good news for us and for 99% of evolution-deniers on the street, but bad news for hard-core anti-evolution activists and the sleazy politicians who pander to them.

    And that positive news would be, that instead of stupid questions like “do you believe in evolution” they (activists and politicians) are asked for specific “whats, wheres, whens and hows” of the designer’s actions. I would start with “do you agree with long-time evolution-denier Michael Behe that life is billions of years old and that humans share common ancestors with dogs and dogwoods?” Another question would be “do you think the designer intervenes at human conception?” I asked a self-described creationist that years ago, and he said “yes” immediately. He then went into the usual evasion mode when I informed him how that undermines the ID/creationist strategy of pretending that “intervention” occurred “somewhere, long ago, but don’t ask, where, when, how.”

  15. Adam’s genome, reconstructed.

  16. Finding a four legged insect?

  17. For one who believes in divine intervention in human conception, I wonder whether they believe that that means that there is something wrong with the scientific explanation of reproduction. Perhaps that there is an alternative to be taught in K-12 schools … Pick any of the standard popular creationist talking points, and reword it in respect to reproduction. Or whether they are just talking about the creation of the individual soul, and have no complaint about natural science.

  18. Here is some positive news from creationists: A new book “How I changed my mind about evolution”.