Incredible Clunker Free Fire Zone

Our difficulty in finding “good” creationist nonsense to blog about is also echoed by the creationist websites. They’re so desperate for material that they post stuff like this: Gypsies Massacred as Part of the Darwinian Eugenic Holocaust.

We found it at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. This one was written by Jerry Bergman, whom we introduced two years ago by writing ICR Has a New Creation Scientist.

There’s really not much to say about Bergman’s article, so we won’t say much or quote much from it. It begins with an “Abstract,” as if it were some kind of serious research paper. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The Gypsies, along with the Jews, were a major target of the Holocaust due to claims that they were both inferior races. Attempts to apply Darwinian eugenics were part of the Nazi effort to produce a superior race in Germany. The Gypsies have largely been ignored by scholars and others until recently. At least a dozen academic studies and four books have now been dedicated to document their experience during World War II. Hitler was not behind the genocide of Gypsies, nor was he concerned about them; the academic “race scientists” planned and orchestrated their genocide.

Whether Hitler was personally involved is essentially irrelevant. We’re far more concerned with the claim that such barbaric behavior applied “Darwinian eugenics.” In response to endless creationist claims about that, we debunked the whole thing and wrote Hitler and Darwin. To further debunk it we wrote Hitler, Darwin, and … Winston Churchill? — because unlike Hitler, Churchill actually did read Darwin.

Here’s one more paragraph from Bergman’s “abstract”:

The Gypsies’ case illustrates a major result of rejecting the Genesis teaching that all men are descendants of the original created pair of humans, and instead Nazi ideology classified people groups on a superior-inferior ranking. As documented in this brief review, the evil this worldview caused, even to a relatively small group, was enormous.

Yeah, according to Hambo’s creation scientists, the Nazis ignored the bible and followed the teachings of Darwin instead. We’re not going to spend any more time on this clunker. Instead, we’re declaring this post to be an Intellectual Free-Fire Zone.

As with all our free-fire zones, we’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, Blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

25 responses to “Incredible Clunker Free Fire Zone

  1. There are a number of interesting real science items that have been in the news lately. I’d like to hear about the evolutionary impact of the protein folding simulation. (And anything that is not virus or politics!)

  2. Sorry, TomS, but I’m going to ask a political question in this FFZ.
    To wit:

    If Trump has evidence of electoral fraud, why didn’t he bring it forthwith to the attention of the Justice Department so the full force of the investigatory powers of the entire U.S. Government could get to the truth?

    It seems to me the answer is obvious – there is no evidence, as Attorney General William Barr has recently stated.

  3. This FFZ allows me to have some more fun with DaveL’s “not knowing national borders is a bug, not a feature”.
    Take a Dutch criminal being chased by Dutch police. He/she runs to Germany. The old way: Dutch police knew where the border was and had to stop. They had to contact the ministry of justice and security, which had to contact the ministry of foreign affairs (both in The Hague), which had to contact the ministry of foreign affairs in (back then) Bonn, which had to contact the ministry of justice, which had to contact the local German police, which had to organize a takeover of the hunt. According to DaveL that was a feature, I suppose ‘cuz sovereignty above all.
    The modern way: Dutch police hunts the Dutch criminal down on German soil; paperwork (if necessary at all) comes later – via the local (Dutch and German) police departments. According to DaveL that’s a bug. ‘Cuz borders above all.
    I’m sure criminals agree. So did smugglers back in the days – they made a living thanks to borders. They preferred

    Dutch-Belgium border during WW-1. In the middle there were transmission cables; touching was deadly. Yup, 100 years ago Dutchies and Flemings lived the Trumpian dream, thanks to invading Jerries. Those were the times!

  4. I’d like SC to show us evidence that Trump is not a lying narcissist trying to steal the election.

  5. chris schilling

    “I’d like SC to show us evidence…”

    What a bizarre demand.

  6. I’ve been interested in creationism for something like 30 years. It has prepared me for “if they have a description of what happened and have evidence for that” let them tell is. Otherwise, I’m going with the obvious as long as the experts agree.

  7. @Matt: our dear SC won’t, because he never denied that Donald the Clown was one. You’re ultra-decided to comment as ridiculously as you can, aren’t you? What’s next? Demanding evidence for a creator-god from Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

  8. I’ve been remarkably tolerant, but that can’t go on forever. From now on, Matt, if you have anything to say that contributes to this blog, it’ll get through the moderation process. Otherwise, your comments won’t be missed.

  9. retiredsciguy: I’m sure you’re right, and there is no evidence of fraud on anything like the scale required. Trump lost. End of story.

  10. Interesting that AIG continues to use the racist name for the Roma people. Gypsies went out as a description for these people 20 years ago. But his droolers would not know that would they?

  11. FrankB, your anecdote is an example of the advantages of not having a strict border. But why stop there? Surely it would be best if we all lived in the same polity, under the same laws, the same enforcement, the same policing, the same government. No doubt large savings and benefits could be achieved.

    Alas, like many others, I prefer to live in what I identify as my own country, and I don’t want to be in any doubt about where its borders are. However efficient and expedient it might be, I do not want to see foreign cops in pursuit of foreign criminals where I live.

  12. God works in mysterious ways:

    Kayleigh McEnany says ‘God had planned for me’ to be Trump’s White House press secretary

    So I presume God will be busy in the coming months finding new jobs for the current White House staffers?

    And does that mean there’s no point in praying for anything else? Like, maybe, miraculously taking away the pandemic, or something?

    …I’ll stick to my unshakeable belief in the Cosmic Aardvark instead!

  13. Michael Fugate

    I am beginning to think she believes Trump is God…

  14. @ Michael Fugate: On the island of Tanna, in Vanuatu, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is a god.

    And, given that Prince Philip is now 99 years old, I think it is time he retires from all the stresses of divinity–and that neatly solves the problem of winkling Trump out of the Oval Office in January: he can step in as the new god of the island of Tanna!

    Once The Donald is informed that he has not lost the Presidency so much as he has won Immortal Divinity, he will instantly leave off his tantrum and enthusiastically embrace this astounding opportunity. “The White House is for wimps,” he will tweet as he packs his bags for Vanuatu. “My name is Orangeymandias, King of Gods! Look on my works, ye Losers, and despair, bigly!”

    And credit where due: he is admirably well-suited for the role, already believing—as he does—in his own divinity. A vociferous climate-change denier, where better for him than the island of Tanna to re-enact the popular misconception of King Canute by ineffectually ordering back the rising waves?

    Moreover, he will arrive in Vanuatu with his two sons, Uday and Qusay, as an oven-ready dynasty to eventually take their own places in the local pantheon. And daughter Ivanka, who now finds herself unwelcome in New York, will doubtless accompany the Holy Family to its new home in the South Pacific. But the party won’t include Melania. Rumour has it she plans to file for divorce on 21 January and will likely, using the funds due her from a generous pre-nuptial contract, return to her native Slovenia, where she is already venerated in her own right with a bronze idol.

    So it is probably Sidney Powell who will take on the role of Holy Consort to The Orange One, with Rudy Giuliani as Chief Court Jester. And all the while the USA can return to Government by Grown-Ups.

    And I, for one, will welcome the new Orange Overlord!

  15. Anybody who believes that God has a plan for their life really hasn’t given that idea too much thought. As Douglas Menuez says – “G_d has a plan for you, and it might turn out to be nasty and brief. Best to savor the tequila slowly with your compadre and continue the conversation.”

  16. Michael Fugate

    Here’s one for little Jimmy Tour and his traveling band of creationists
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4
    Progress on how life began – impossible, you say?

  17. Megalonyx, I read your last on Brexit in the last FFZ. I can only conclude from it that you live in a different reality in which the EU’s legislation is not proposed by an appointed body of 27 commissioners, but its Parliament is actually empowered to legislate as it wills; and where its rejection is final, not the portal to further debate. In that different reality, EU legislation is not binding on member states unless they severally consent to it by act of their legislatures; and anyway EU legislation doesn’t cover trade, manufacturing, agriculture, finance, state aid, labour and environment. Only thus can it be true that what I say about the structure of the EU is untrue.

    But it is evident and undeniable that whatever realities we both live in, our conversation in shouts across the gulf have become pointless, and wearisome to the company here. I suggest we desist.

  18. Dave Luckett proposes:

    I suggest we desist.

    Would that I could!

    But unlike you, I have to live in the needlessly damaged reality which has been wrought entirely by falsehoods which some people, such as your good self, have regurgitated.

    My reality is known empirically, whereas your professed one is exhibited only in a veritable Gish gallop of unsubstantiated assertions (e.g. ‘the EU army’) and emotional hyperbole (“expansionist Empire”). And only in your lexicon of Humpty-Dumptyist definitions can the bodies of the EU be characterised as ‘alien’ or ‘undemocratic’, though it is amusing that, with those terms so misused, your objections can be applied a fortiori to actual nation states than to an intergovernmental treaty organisation like the EU. Your rhetoric on this topic is straight out of the Creationist playbook.
    But never mind: it’s as pointless as arguing with Ham’s phoney distinction between something he calls ‘observational’ vs ‘historical’ science. And such a discussion would at best be academic.

    So let’s return to reality: As the result of its own plebiscite, the UK has exercised its legal right to leave the EU, and it has done so—as set forth in law—without let or hinderance (which inter alia suggests the Brussels Illuminati are not quite as omnipotent as your fevered imagination would have them). The UK has thereby achieved the 100% pure and unadulterated sovereignty advocated by the Brexiteers!

    So hooray! In less than three weeks, the full blessings of Brexit will descend upon this happy realm. True, even now we still don’t know exactly whether we will be trading with the EU on WTO terms or on some last-minute stitched together arrangement, but never mind, the benefits of leaving the EU were loudly proclaimed by the Brexiteers during the referendum.

    Do I need to itemise those promises, not one of which has been or could be fulfilled?

    • Continued tariff-free non-quota access to the Single Market (because “they need us more than we need them”)
    • Continued data sharing with Interpol &c (because we’re British and trustworthy)
    • £350 million savings per week for the NHS (in fact, the cost of Brexit to date has cost more than our previous 47 years of membership fees)
    • &c &c &c
    But enough. I’ve previously itemised the demonstrable costs and Please do itemise, and in concrete terms, the benefits of Brexit.

    Or not, just as you choose. After all, you do not have to put up with the deleterious consequences of what you have advocated. I can understand why you feel the need to run away.

  19. So, no.

    Winston Churchill said it best: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject”. But I have done with this.

  20. @ Dave Luckett: Except, if he said it all, Churchill didn’t say it first..

    But I’m not surprised: when did a Brexiteer ever hesitate to play fast and loose with boring old facts?

    And the essential fact here is simple: for keyboard warriors of the internet, Brexit may indeed be merely a “subject” one would wish change when you’re losing the argument, but for those of us with skin in the game, it is now a deeply damaging reality that has inflicted enormous, lasting, and generational harm on my country’s political stability, social cohesion, and economic performance.

    We in the UK will be enduring this senseless mutilation for many years to come, it is not a ‘subject’ we can blithely change at will.

    So before you effortlessly flit away, do take a moment to raise a festive glass with Putin, Wilders, Farage, and Xi—but apologies from Trump, who would have joined in the celebrations were he not otherwise preoccupied. Take a pat on the back from them for your own small contribution as one of the foot-soldiers who steadfastly regurgitated the demonstrable falsehoods that have led to this calamity.

    Or as Winnie himself might have put it: Never in the field of political screw-ups can so much be blamed on so few.

  21. Interesting that DaveL quotes favourably DaveL. Let me do it too:

    15 February 1930: “We are with Europe, but not of it.”
    19 September 1946: “We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”
    Well before Germany and France started to cooperate.
    Of course we know that DaveL’s political mindset is from the 19th Century.