From time to time we find a creationist article that makes us think: “This is the wildest, craziest, most ridiculous pile of [BLEEP] we’ve ever seen!” And so it is with what we found today in the Southern Times, a newspaper with offices in several countries in southern Africa. The title is Daring to invent a better future. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Among the people whose ideas have changed the world, Charles Darwin is right up there with the most influential characters to walk this Earth. From a very young age, most of us are taught the theory of evolution, and in many cases it is a subject that does not sit well with our upbringing on Creationism. [Sad, but true!] It is more than a little ironic that Darwin started out early adulthood with the intention of making a career in the church, but ended up setting out the theory that is more often than not is used to attack religion, the Divine spark and intelligent design.
Yeah, Darwin was a bad dude. Then the newspaper says:
Proponents of evolution parade their claims as cold, hard science and their root text is Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”. Few people are aware that the full title of the Darwin text that provides the basis for evolutionism is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life”. [Gasp!] Do we need to point out the racial, pseudo-scientific underpinnings of the theory?
The madness begins. As we said in Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, that book’s title is often the only thing by Darwin the creationists ever read, and they mindlessly misinterpret it. Darwin, like his contemporaries, uses the terms “race,” “sub-species,” “variety,” and similar expressions interchangeably in connection with a great number of animals (dogs, horses, etc.) and also plants (flowers, cabbages, etc.), sometimes intermixing them in the same context. Aside from that, Origin of Species doesn’t even talk about the evolution of humans.
The article’s first blunder was a good one, and we’re just getting started. Next they tell us:
That said, among evolution’s highly unscientific and grossly unprovable premises is that at some point in the past, inorganic matter became living matter. To put it bluntly, the claim is that given enough time and the “right conditions”, a rock will one day sprout legs and walk, or grow fins and swim.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We love this article! It continues:
But here’s the catch, inorganic matter stopped changing into organic matter at some point, and species stopped changing into different species at some point. [Yeah, it all just stopped!] This is something we are told to accept as scientific proof, but it really can only be accepted as an article of faith! [Faith? Egad!] All real scientific inquiry will tell you that a rock will never walk inasmuch as a dog will never become a cat. In short, evolution is a matter of faith rather than of science.
Wowie — evolution is insanity! Let’s read on:
So what’s the point? The point is something cannot evolve into an entirely new species. [Yeah!] Which is why the developing world has for many years now agonised about why the United Nations has not evolved into anything other than a club in which five countries have arrogated for themselves the right to tell more than 185 other countries how the world should be run.
We’ll skip all the UN bashing. Actually, that means skipping the rest of the article, but you can click over there and read it all if you want to. Here’s a taste of what we’re omitting:
Evolution is not going to spawn the United Nations that the oppressed people of the world are clamouring for. On the other hand, revolution has tended to birth new political species.
Phooey on evolution, hooray for revolution! The thing ends by quoting someone we never heard of, but Wikipedia has an article on him: Thomas Sankara. They say he was a “Marxist–Leninist and pan-Africanist,” who was President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. Well, good for him and for his lucky subjects. Anyway, here’s a quote from him that the newspaper thinks is important in this context:
“You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness. In this case, it comes from nonconformity, the courage to turn your back on the old formulas, the courage to invent the future. It took the madmen of yesterday for us to be able to act with extreme clarity today. I want to be one of those madmen. We must dare to invent the future.”
Or to put it in more familiar words: Creationists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.