Creative Challenge #62: Creationist News?

This is becoming all too common — a total lack of creationist news. The first time it happened to us 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.

But it’s been happening with increasing frequency, and the news lulls are lasting longer than ever. Creationists just can’t seem to get into the news these days. But why? It’s true that they have no published research in any respected journal, and their “science” has no credibility in the academic world. But that has always been true.

Nevertheless, creationists used to at least try to legislate their nonsense into public school science classes. Those efforts never went anywhere — except for Louisiana and Tennessee. Idiots in other state legislatures keep trying to get creationist legislation passed, but always without success. So what can they do? Produce another “documentary” like Expelled? Write more vanity press books?

We’ve asked this before, but the question is more urgent now than ever. We need you to suggest something — anything! — creationists could do to get their “science” in the news. We’re not looking for a scandal — although it would certainly be amusing if that were to happen. We want real news.

The form of today’s challenge is that you must tell us, with reasonable brevity:

What could be done to give creationists some 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 © 2019. 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

23 responses to “Creative Challenge #62: Creationist News?

  1. Hinuman footprints alongside dinosaurs? (Oops; they’ve done that already). But I fear we’ll see a lot more activity if Pence becomes President

  2. “What could be done to give creationists some positive press coverage?”
    Accepting evolution theory.Otherwise creationist news is negative by definition.

  3. Paul Braterman says: ” I fear we’ll see a lot more activity if Pence becomes President”

    He seems to be a believer, but I’ve seen no evidence that he’s an activist. We’ll find out in due course.

  4. ChristineMJ’s link contains some interesting stuff:

    https://creation.com/the-fossil-record-and-precambrian-rabbits

    “The absence of such a rabbit does not falsify biblical creation. If such a rabbit was found it would not falsify evolution.”
    Wowie! A score of 50%! The first sentence is entirely correct. The second not so much. But here we find the real problem creacrappers have (and it ain’t no surprise – it can be found in the intro of the IDiot Wedge Document as well).

    https://creation.com/precambrian-rabbits-death-knell-for-evolution

    “How do they deal with this conundrum? They adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach, with implicit faith in naturalism. They proclaim that it is an ‘unsolved mystery’ in the hopes that future evidence will give an explanation.”
    Creacrappers reject methodological naturalism, aka the scientific method.

    “The evolutionary scheme is not at fault (of course!); we just don’t have enough information yet.”
    But this demonstrates once again how limited creacrap thinking is. Methodological naturalism doesn’t necessarily lead to evolution theory – perhaps there is some other naturalistic explanation.

    “And yet, after nearly 50 years, we’re still waiting for a solution.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yes, dear fellow-evilutionists – we have to explain everything immediately or naturalism is false and creacrap is correct.

  5. Christine Marie Janis

    Yeah, yeah, when they find that Ediacaran lagomorph they can have their moment of glory. Until then, however, it’s just the usual argy-bargy.

  6. Michael Fugate

    Frank B, that would be a “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” movement for creationists. It would be like Chick-Fil-A trying to explain their donation policy to the homophobes who formerly ate their sandwiches.

    Maybe an announcement that they decided on actually studying Christianity to find out what Jesus stood for?

  7. I have some thrilling Dutch news, especially for those with too much money in their wallets. Logos.nl praises

    https://www.naturalis.nl/en

    in the beautiful city of Leiden.

    https://logos.nl/steun-ons-project-een-creationistische-museumgids-van-naturalis/

    But such a pity – it presents the past (fossils etc.) is only from a naturalistic perspective. So many christian parents are a bit scared to bring their children there. Fortunately Logos.nl has found a great solution! A co-worker with an educational background (whatever that means) plans to write a creationist guidebook for this museum. Of course that costs money. Now let nobody say that Dutch creationists are old-fashioned: Logos.nl has started a crowd-funding! Of course you want to contribute; Logos.nl provides a handy link (I haven’t checked). According to the article God will help too and you don’t want to stay at the sideline, do you?

    If this ain’t positive creationist news than nothing is. I’d say the latter is most likely.

  8. They should bring back Casey Luskin.

    That won’t help their hopeless cause, but you could always count on The Gerb to bring a smile to ones face!

  9. Has anyone ever asked today’s president his opinion on evolution?

  10. @Doublas, nothing relevant to evolution though we must be grateful to his successor in Indiana for allowing needle exchange and other obviously sensible measures.

    @SC: Pence *did* make a speech as a Congressman claimng that the unexpected discovery of Sahelanthropus showed that evolution was a theory being mistaught as fact, and arguing from this that creationsit theories should also be allowed into the classroom: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/sahelanthropus-evolution-and-the-word-theory-what-mike-pence-really-said/

  11. Indeed, Forbes and I are writing about the same speech. Having checked his bio, I’m sure he will remain fervent creationist as long as that furthers his career

  12. @Doglas, thanks also for the National Law Review link, stuff I need to know about

  13. Michael Fugate

    Here is a classic for getting creationists* in the news
    https://www.wjhl.com/news/regional/tennessee/tennessee-lawmaker-calls-for-removal-of-higher-education-to-cut-off-liberal-breeding-ground/

    * with logic like that he must be a creationist…

  14. Dave Luckett

    “The country’s in the very best of hands…”

  15. Stephen Kennedy

    The creationists are hoping that Trump will get to appoint another member of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would them overturn all of the past rulings making the teaching of creationism unconstitutional. The flaw in their thinking is that the majority of the sitting justices may be politically conservative but they are not evangelicals. I think that now seven of the nine justices are Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church’s position on the Theory of Evolution is somewhat complicated but it certainly opposes YEC strongly. The Church also strongly supports the Big Bang Theory which was first proposed in 1927 by Physicist/Mathematician/Astronomer Georges Lemaitre who was also an ordained Catholic priest.

    The creationists evangelicals who hypocritically support Trump and want the SC to issue opinions as if the court was packed with Southern Baptists are not likely to be satisfied on how this SC will rule on creationism in the classroom.

  16. @StephenK: “which was first proposed in 1927 by ….”
    Make it second. Atheist-commie Alexander Friedmann did so four or five years before.

  17. SC says,
    ”He [Mike Pence] seems to be a believer, but I’ve seen no evidence that he’s an activist. We’ll find out in due course.

    “We’ll find out in due course”? Do you mean when he’s president?? Are you counting on a “Guilty!” verdict in the Senate?

  18. retiredsciguy asks:

    Are you counting on a “Guilty!” verdict in the Senate?

    No. I assume Pence will run for President after Trump’s very likely second term. He may not win, but he’ll reveal his stance on creationism.