Creationist Wisdom #1,066: Louisiana Genius

Ths year’s first letter-to-the-editor appears in the Shreveport Times of Shreveport, Louisiana. We were told about it by no less than two of our clandestine operatives, so you know it’s good.

The letter is titled Where is the Christian church to challenge teaching of evolution in schools?, and the newspaper appears to have a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is John. Excerpts from the letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Do any of you know what it would take to get the godless teaching of evolution theory as a factual explanation for all of the life on this planet out of our public schools or supplement it with the Christian explanation of God creating all that is? Anybody have a guess?

Hey — that’s a great question! Well, dear reader, do you have any idea what it would take? While you’re thinking about it, let’s continue with John’s letter. He says:

In my opinion, it would take one Christian family, or one Christian church with one or more families, that have young children facing public school indoctrination that the Christian belief in a creator God is false.

Wowie — it would take only one! But what would that one family or church have to do? John tells us:

Christians have been losing this battle for decades for lack of one family or one church willing to challenge what we have in federal court. [Ooooooooooooh! A challenge in Federal court!] The suit might take a couple or three years, but it should result in banning evolution theory or adding creationism.

Why hasn’t anyone ever thought of this before? Oh, wait — our friends at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) have a listing of Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism. Perhaps John should take a look at those. Anyway, he continues:

Churches have fought against horse racing and gambling boats here in Shreveport, and abortions everywhere, but they have never fought to prevent public school teachers from telling young children that the God they are taught about in Sunday School had nothing to do with man’s origin. The biblical story of creation is a lie.

John should check out Edwards v. Aguillard, a US Supreme Court case from 1987. It’s on NCSE’s list. He would learn that Louisiana used to have a law just like the one he now wants. Wikipedia says:

The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court [citation] and the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed, [citation]. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.

John’s brilliant letter ends with yet another gripe he has:

That’s perhaps the biggest reason I’m so critical of the churches. The second would be how they have responded to the rapid growth of the LGBTQ movement.

Ah yes. Wikipedia has an article on LGBT (without the “Q”), but it says:

It may refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual or non-cisgender, instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. To recognize this inclusion, a popular variant, LGBTQ, adds the letter Q for those who identify as queer or are questioning their sexual identity.

So John is upset about those folks too — and the churches don’t do anything to stop them from doing what they do! Well, now that John’s letter has been published, maybe we’ll see some action. Or, more likely, John will live out his days as a bitter old man. Anyway, it was a great letter!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,066: Louisiana Genius

  1. Charley Horse X

    Could it be the same John Byrd mentioned at:
    By Jeff Ferrell | December 6, 2016 at 9:47 PM CST – Updated August 12 at 7:46 PM

    BOSSIER CITY, LA (KSLA) – KSLA News 12 is learning new details about the man accused of beating his mom nearly to death and injuring his father.

    What many describe as bizarre social media posts by 37-year-old John Byrd could help provide some insight into the suspect’s state of mind.
    QUOTE BYRD: “I am the Savior of the world.” “To Prime Minister Netanyahu. Unleash hell at my command”

  2. I saw that stuff, but I have no way of knowing if that’s the letter-writer, so I thought it prudent not to mention it. I still think that, so let’s leave it alone.

  3. Haven’t heard much from Louisiana lately, so I guess we were due. Living in LA LA Land (It’s not just California anymore) is always good for a laugh from time to time. I don’t think many people understand the evolution of the COVID-19 virus is taking place. Let’s just hope it doesn’t change so much as to affect the effectiveness of the vaccine.

  4. @Biokid: “the evolution of the COVID-19 virus is taking place”
    How do you mean, evolution? It’s just variation within a kind – with all those changes, the virus remains a virus! As that great philosopher from Braunau am Inn in his masterpiece My Struggle wrote: the fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.
    Show me a virus turning into an elephant, then we can start talking evolution!

  5. chris schilling

    Every creationist could write a memoir titled: “My Struggle…With Understanding the Concept of Descent with Modification.”

  6. Dave Luckett

    Ignorance appears to have a large “g” factor. That is, ignorance of one large field seems to be statistically likely to be associated with ignorance of others. John hasn’t a clue about evolution, or science generally, but he is also comprehensively ignorant about law and history.

    I suppose that is inevitable, as is John’s Dunning-Kruger. He is ignorant; he is ignorant of his own ignorance. He is ignorant of his ignorance of his ignorance, and so ad infinitum.

    Such complexity! Such undending depth! Such glorious certitude! Why, what else can one think, but that it must be intelligently designed?

  7. Any thoughts on Trump today?

  8. A clown like always – what’s more to say?

  9. Dave Luckett

    This is rather more than clowning. I would call it delusional. I would call Giuliani’s speech calling for “trial by combat”, an incitement to insurrection and hence actual treason, but I certainly have no business advising Americans what should be done about it.

  10. Matt’s question and my answer were about Donald the Clown, not about Rudy Giuliani, who is not a clown at all. Being delusional is an important reason why I call Donald a clown; being incompetent another. For similar reasons I call BoJo a clown, but certainly not Nigel Farage, let alone that Intelligent Designer behind the Brexit campaign Dominic Cummings.
    What I fear is the day that a young charismatic authoritarian who is actually competent becomes the face of an alternative-right movement. For a few years I thought Dutch Thierry Baudet could be one, but he has done a good job committing political suicide last few months.
    But why do you care, DaveL? As our dear SC, your political ally, has explained so often JoeB is a socialist and given the slippery slope you so expertly pointed out a while ago that only can result in another Gulag Archipel or Killing Fields. The mob who stormed the Capitol hence were freedom fighters – exactly what they said themselves.
    On your (and our dear SC’s) “definition” of socialism, that is.

  11. This is a good opportunity to dedicate myself to my favourite hobby: pissing off everybody. Because Donald is not the only one clowning around. So are the Democrats, including the moderate socialists aka social democrats Bernie Sanders, AOC etc. The funniest clown though is Nancy Pelosi, posing as a tough woman with her impeachment procedure.
    Because that’s what this impeachment is, nothing but posing. It does nothing to solve the fundamental problems that made this farcial second Bierkeller Putsch possible. On the contrary, most Democrats and especially Pelosi only want to maintain the status quo. It has guaranteed her political career for decades.
    Deliberate or not, this impeachment procedure is a decoy, an excuse to change nothing. And American liberals rejoice.
    Until the mob finds itself a capable leader.

  12. Eddie Janssen

    If Pelosi succeeds in getting Trump impeached he is no longer allowed to run for any kind of government office in the future, including the presidency.
    Wether that is a positive development for the Democrats remains to be seen: Trump might split the Republican Party making electoral victory for the Democrats a lot easier. Pelosi has concluded it is
    Any thoughts of US citizens more knowledgeable about this than an interested European?

  13. Dave Luckett

    Briefly, I care because I care about democracy, which is not mob rule. And I join you in fearing a “young charismatic authoritarian”. Such people are always dangerous, but most dangerous of all where the institutions of representative democracy are fragile or subverted. That was why the attack on the Capitol was so appalling, The institution of representation was itself under attack. Democracy is never in so much trouble as when those who would destroy it claim to be acting in its name.

    If Biden is a socialist, then the word has no meaning. You have a different definition, but for me a socialist is one who holds that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be commonly owned by a whole community and should be inalienable. But by all means use your own definition, EIther one is irrelevant, here, for we are not dealing with ideals, as such, at all..

    Like you, I fear young charismatic sectional politicians, clever activists who have learned the knack of inciting crowds. They often don’t believe in anything, except that human societies are battlegrounds that must be conquered by any means. We saw a manifestation of that idea at the Capitol, which is why I join you in unequivocably condemning it. Some of them were wrapped in the flag, while they trampled on the Constitution. Patriots? Those morons were betraying their country.

    Possibly that doesn’t weigh much with you, but it does with me. See, I think a country is important, and that its value does not depend on whether it benefits you now, here, in some stated particular. It is a community, a set of ideas, a hierarchy and cloud of institutions. It has a consensus, history, a weight and substance of its own. It has a culture that may be different from others only in small and subtle ways, but you miss those ways when they are absent. Human beings can be tied to a place and a people by fragile filaments, like Gulliver to Lilliput, but for many, the ties are real and vital. They are for me.

    But even if we discard all such ideas as sentimental tosh, there is still this: every attempt to shout down another, whether it takes the form of mobbing a legislative chamber or a town hall or a lecture or a court or an internet forum, is an assault on democracy itself. Some of those assaults are committed by liars and hooligans who wrap themselves in the flag. Some are not. Can we agree to condemn all of them, flag-wrapped or not?