Here’s Why the Discoveroids Oppose Abortion

The United States has been overwhelmed by hysterical news stories about the likelihood of a Supreme Court decision that will overturn Roe vs. Wade, so that the legality of abortion will once again be up to each state, rather than legal throughout the country as it is now. The creationists are going wild about it — for example, this post from a week ago by Ken Ham: Rumor: Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade.

You can read ol’ Hambo’s post if you want to, but we’re going to discuss a different one. It’s at at the Discovery Institute’s creationist website, titled When Does Human Life Begin? It was written two years ago by Michael Egnor, and the Discoveroids think it’s so important that they’re posting it again. If you don’t know who Egnor is, here’s his biography at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Okay, let’s get into it. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In the abortion debate, the question of “When does human life begin?” is central. Abortion proponents frequently argue that human life does not begin at conception, but at a later time in gestation, and they morally justify abortion on this basis. They argue that abortion of an embryo or fetus before a certain gestational age is moral because the embryo or fetus is not yet a human being.

We interrupt in order to give you your Curmudgeon’s position on this issue. By coincidence, we wrote about it in response to an earlier Egnor post — from seven years ago. That was Egnor Rants About Abortion. We said:

The end of human life isn’t particularly controversial. … [A]lmost everyone agrees that when the brain ceases to function, that’s the end of human life. Your Curmudgeon’s personal belief is that a symmetrical rule should be applied to determine the beginning of human life. That’s when the brain is sufficiently developed that it begins to function — which can be determined by electroencephalography, and which occurs somewhere during the middle of a pregnancy. … [W]hen the brain begins to function, the fetus has become a human being and abortion is wrong — in our humble opinion.

But no one cares about our opinion, so let’s get back to Egnor. He tells us:

There is a clear scientific answer to the question “When does human life begin?” [Really?] Let us consider the various possible scientific answers to that question.

He continues:

One answer (as given above) would be that the fertilized egg or the embryo or the fetus up to a certain age is not yet a human being and in fact is a part of the mother’s body. The pro-abortion argument would be that the embryo or fetus becomes a human being at some point later in gestation and that aborting the embryo or fetus prior to that point is moral because it is merely a part of a woman’s body and not a human being in itself.

We can go with what Egnor just said, even though we explain our position differently, but Egnor doesn’t like it. He explains why:

However, from a scientific standpoint, at the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm, a completely new organism is present. The organism is not a part of the mother’s body although he or she is located within the mother’s body. Half of the time, the organism is a boy. The genetic complement of the new human being is unique and different from that of the mother.

Yes, it’s an organism. But is it a human being? Let’s read on:

The argument that this unique human being present in the mother’s womb from the moment of fertilization is a part of the mother’s body until sometime later in gestation is, from a scientific viewpoint, bizarre. … This argument used by abortion proponents — that an embryo or fetus is a part of the mother’s body until a certain point of gestation — is scientific nonsense. When the argument is made by a scientist, it represents either scientific incompetence or deliberate deception.

Egad, we’ve been insulted by a creationist! And now we come to the end:

It is the responsibility of the scientific community [Like the Discoveroids?] to make it clear to the public that this argument is junk science and is obviously used merely to defend the morality of killing a young human being in the womb.

Isn’t it thrilling to see the Discoveroids fighting against junk science?

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

ICR Says Darwinists Are Racists & Communists

You probably remember this post from two weeks ago: Disbelief in Evolution Causes Prejudice and Racism. We predicted that there would be howling and screaming coming from the usual creationist websites.

The Discoveroids have already posted their response — see Does Disbelief in Human Evolution Foment Racism? You can read it if you like but it’s a tiresome exercise in double-talk.

We’re going to discuss what we found at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their post is titled Does Creationism Lead to Racism? It was written by Jake Hebert, a Research Scientist at ICR with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A newly published psychology paper strongly suggests that disbelief in human evolution leads to racism. … This article echoes a Scientific American opinion piece published last year that claimed that denial of evolution is a form of “white supremacy.”

We didn’t know about the Scientific American article. Here’s a link to it: Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy, and one brief excerpt:

Early humans from the African continent are the ones who first invented tools; the use of fire; language; and religion. These dark skinned early people laid down the foundation for human culture.

Okay, let’s get back to ICR. Jake says:

Like last year’s Scientific American opinion piece, this [the one we recently wrote about] sounds suspiciously like a politically-motivated “hit job” on creationists. [Gasp!] Yes, skeptics of human evolution are much more likely to believe the Bible’s account of creation and to share its disapproval of homosexual behavior, but this study simplistically refuses to acknowledge what should be obvious to any parent or even to anyone with a sense of nuance: it is possible to love someone while disapproving of his conduct. [Creationists love Darwinists!] Moreover, the study equates biblical creationists’ affirmation of the Bible’s sexual morality with ethnic hatred.

That’s not how we read the study. Anyway, Jake tells us:

Evolutionists make the rosy claim that “belief in evolution would tend to increase people’s identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to fewer prejudicial attitudes.” However [Here it comes!], this prejudicial link has been thoroughly documented [Huh?], as has evolutionism’s influence on ideological movements like Nazism and Communism [Aaaargh!!], which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in the last century. Attempts to absolve evolution from its baleful influence on twentieth-century politics is sheer historical revisionism.

This is pathetic stuff. We debunked those clunkers a long time ago. See Hitler and Darwin, and also Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Okay, Jake’s post continues:

Nor is it hard to see why a belief in evolution would naturally lead to racist thinking. If evolution is true, then it is entirely possible that one people group, through chance mutations and sheer dumb luck, might now be “more highly evolved” — and therefore superior — to other people groups. And what if this “superior” group decides it has a right to mistreat other “less evolved” groups? If we have no Creator and are just the results of a cosmic accident, then there is no objective basis for morality and “might makes right” is the only rule. In a universe in which evolution is true, what basis is there for saying that such mistreatment is wrong?

That paragraph is really wild! Rabid racists like the Klan in the old-time Southern US were opposed to Darwin’s theory and they supported the prosecution of John Scopes.

This is getting tedious, so lets jump right to the end of Jake’s post:

One can’t help but suspect that some proponents of evolutionary theory are getting rather desperate. [Hee hee!] For many years, they tried to simply ignore creationists. It was considered uncouth even to mention creationists in “polite” scientific conversation. That tactic didn’t seem to work, so now they are suggesting that we are psychologically defective and/or crazy. [No comment!] The one thing they aren’t doing is presenting convincing evidence for the evolutionary story. Perhaps that’s because such evidence is nowhere to be found.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That was really entertaining. Thanks, Jake!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

Disbelief in Evolution Causes Prejudice and Racism

There will be howling and screaming coming from the usual creationist websites. Look what we just found at PhysOrg: Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Here’s a link to the journal article: Bigotry and the human-animal divide: (Dis)belief in human evolution and bigoted attitudes across different cultures, but you have to pay to see more than the abstract. Okay, back to PhysOrg:

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution.

We can already hear the howling and screaming. Ah well, whatcha gonna do? PhysOrg says:

The researchers theorized that belief in evolution would tend to increase people’s identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to fewer prejudicial attitudes. “People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos [ lead author Stylianos Syropoulo] explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

The bad news for creationists rolls on:

In eight studies involving different areas of the world, the researchers analyzed data from the American General Social Survey (GSS), the Pew Research Center and three online crowdsourced samples. In testing their hypothesis about the associations of different levels of belief in evolution, they accounted for education, political ideology, religiosity, cultural identity and scientific knowledge. “We found the same results each time, which is basically that believing in evolution relates to less prejudice, regardless of the group you’re in, and controlling for all of these alternative explanations,” Syropoulos says.

PhysOrg continues:

For example, religious beliefs, like political ideology, were measured separately from a belief or disbelief in evolution, the researchers note. “Regardless of whether one considers religion an important part of their life, belief in evolution relates to less prejudice independently from belief, or lack thereof, in God or any particular religion,” Syropoulos says.

Let’s read on:

The researchers note that Darwin’s 19th century theory of evolution has been cited to perpetrate racism, prejudice and homophobia, in part through the phrase, “survival of the fittest,” used to describe the process of natural selection. “There have been theoretical accounts that predict the opposite of what we found, so it was exciting for us to show that this actually is not the case, that the opposite is true and that belief in evolution seems to have pretty positive effects,” [senior author Bernhard] Leidner says.

A few more excerpts:

The data analysis showed unfailingly “that the disbelief in human evolution is the driving factor and most consistent predictor of prejudice in comparison to other relevant constructs,” the paper states. … The findings also suggest that “teaching evolution seems to have side effects that might make for a better or more harmonious society,” Leidner adds.

Okay, that’s enough. Now we just sit back and wait for the creationists’ reactions.

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

The Ultimate: Evolution Is a Rothschild Plot

Make of this what you will, dear reader. It’s all over the internet. Our source is Newsweek. Their headline is Lara Logan Claims Evolution Theory Is a ‘Rothschilds’ Plot. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Fox Nation host Lara Logan pushed an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Charles Darwin was funded by the Rothschild family to invent his theory of evolution during an appearance on a right-wing podcast.

After all the time we’ve spent blogging about creationists, we thought we had seen every crazy argument that could be conceived — but this is a new one. Newsweek says:

Logan, a former correspondent for CBS’ 60 Minutes, questioned what the origins of Darwinism are during an interview on And We Know, a conspiracy theorist show which has also promoted the radical movement QAnon, reported Media Matters for America. “Does anyone know who employed Darwin, where Darwinism comes from?” Logan asked. “Look it up. The Rothschilds.”

Wowie! We didn’t think creationism could get any crazier than it already is, but we were wrong — very wrong. Newsweek tells us:

Logan went on to suggest that whoever employed Darwin to come up with his theory of evolution goes back to the top of the British government. “It goes right back to 10 Downing Street, the same people who employed Darwin and that’s when Darwin wrote his theory of evolution. I’m not saying that none of that is true. I’m just saying Darwin was hired by someone to come up with a theory, right?” Logan said.

It’s very difficult to respond to that and still maintain some shred of linguistic decency. We’re not saying that Lara deserves any decency, but you do, dear reader, so we will attempt to restrain ourselves. Newsweek quotes her again:

“Based on evidence, okay, fine. But even the people, the scientists, all of the people who can take you back to the Big Bang, what is the one question they can never, ever, ever answer? [Tell us, Lara!] They can never tell you what that was. Whether it is the molecules or the energy, or, you know, all that stuff.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Lara is really amazing!

The Newsweek story goes on for a bit, but there’s nothing else about Lara’s creationism. Oh, they say she’s no longer on the Fox network, and was never really employed there. It’ll be interesting to see where she ends up. We can think of a few creationist outfits that might be glad to take her in.

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.