Discoveroids on Martin Luther King Day

The Discovery Institute, wonderful folks that they are, couldn’t let Martin Luther King Jr. Day go by without giving it proper recognition. The task was given to David Klinghoffer, who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger.

Klinghoffer’s post is On Martin Luther King Day, Consider This About Intelligent Design. It’s a repeat of something he wrote three years ago — On MLK Day, Remember that Intelligent Design Is a Civil Rights Issue — but we ignored it then. Today we’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.

He introduces his old post by saying:

I’ve observed here before that intelligent design poses not only a scientific challenge to Darwinism but also a challenge to think a little more broadly about civil rights … [then the repeated material begins].

This is what Klinghoffer wrote back in January 2014:

As we were reminded in the final and likewise shameful resolution of the David Coppedge matter, evolution is a civil-rights issue as much as it is a scientific one. Coppedge’s right to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy was crushed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the judge in the case accepted NASA’s slickly constructed defense, rubber-stamped it, denying him the justice of what should have been total vindication.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Klinghoffer’s attempt to portray the promotion of junk science as a civil rights issue reminds us of something we wrote more than six years ago: Creationism: Abuse of the Language of Rights. We won’t repeat ourselves (as Klinghoffer is doing), but we recommend that you take a look at that post. Okay, back to Klinghoffer. In his oldie-goldie, he said:

[F]or every David Coppedge, there are countless other people who share their scientific doubts about Darwin, their openness to seeing evidence of design in nature, but who keep their views to themselves in a strategy of self-defense. They are teachers, professors, students, and other thoughtful open-minded citizens, who can’t exercise their right to advocate a particular scientific view. They reasonably fear censorship and bullying.

Sickening, isn’t it? You can read it all if you like, but here’s our last excerpt:

Civil-liberties organizations like AU and the ACLU ought to be in the thick of the fight to protect free-expression rights for Darwin doubters. Instead, they stand firmly with the censors and the bullies.

Although it’s irrelevant to Klinghoffer’s strange message, here’s a discussion of King’s views on Darwin. From the quotes therein, we would judge his attitude to be similar to that of the Catholics — he didn’t deny that humans evolved, but he thought the soul is a divine gift. Our guess is that he wouldn’t agree with the Discoveroids — and they probably know it — but they’re willing to exploit him anyway.

Copyright © 2017. 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

Jack Chick’s Newsletter Explains Bad Science

Our old friend, Jack Chick, may be gone, but his website lives on. His newsletter, Battle Cry, lives on too. It’s rarely updated, and when it is, most of the content is too nonsensical even for us, but today we found a good one: How Old is the Moon? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Recent pictures of the moon’s surface have evolutionists scrambling for an explanation. High-resolution images by a lunar orbiter since 2009 show over 200 new craters on the surface.

Assuming that’s true, so what? Unlike the Earth, the Moon has no atmosphere to protect it from meteorites. Why would some new craters have “evolutionists” scrambling? Here’s why:

“Not only does this study invalidate the idea that craters only form over long eras, but the research suggests that these regular impacts could completely alter the surface of the moon within a timescale of thousands — not millions — of years,” wrote Garrett Haley on

If you care, you can read the article they’re referring to here: Evidence of a Young Moon? Study Forces Scientists to Rethink Lunar Dating Techniques. It mentions that “The largest craters they identified were about 140 feet in diameter.” That’s hardly enough to transform the surface of the Moon. Okay, let’s return to the Jack Chick newsletter:

Evidence like this continues to pile up against the “theory” of evolution, proving that the teaching of evolution is the result of bad science, not good science.

Yes, this lunar cratering is bad news for Darwin. Then we’re told:

When Darwin first proposed the “theory” of evolution, men who had rejected God were desperate to find a “natural” explanation for where we came from. They were delighted and set out to find proof of the theory. When they found none, they began to fake it. They “discovered” Piltdown man, who was concocted from a human brain case with an orangutan’s lower jaw, with filed teeth and a filled cavity. They glued moths to tree trunks for pictures that were debunked after they were used in millions of text books. They assembled “Lucy” from bones, that some believe could belong to monkeys, scattered over a mile apart.

All the evidence for evolution is bad. After that we’re given even more bad news:

So, who is evolutionist’s creator? Time! When asked how the complexity of a functioning eyeball could evolve, their only answer is “millions of years.” Yet, even their physicists admit that everything in the universe is falling apart, not getting more organized.

Right! Time can’t make an eyeball. The newsletter continues:

This kind of bad science is behind much of Satan’s lies. [Gasp!] Evidence that homosexuals are “born that way” is non existent but many have bought the lie. Bad science is also behind the effort to find other worlds inhabited by aliens who may have found the solution to the world’s ills.

Yeah — all that other worlds stuff is nonsense! Let’s read on:

Most evolutionists have chosen to believe that man came from primordial soup instead of being created by God. Some try to shoehorn God into the process but have to deny the first chapters in Genesis to do it. Bad science is also obviously in “opposition” to God when it works so hard to find another origin of the universe.

And now we come to the final paragraph:

Good science, on the other hand, has given us ways to use God’s creation to build the most prosperous nation in history. That prosperity has funded missionary efforts taking the gospel to all nations. Now the lies of evolution, Marxism, humanism, globalism and false religions have created world-wide chaos.

That’s horrible! What can we do? We’re told the answer at the very end:

The best way to find those open to the gospel in any crowd is wide seeding of gospel tracts.

Yes, of course! Keep giving out those Chick comic books. That’s the answer!

Copyright © 2017. 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

Hambo Warns Against Blind Faith Religion

This is one of the best we’ve seen from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG). He’s the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Hambo’s new essay is titled Learn How to Combat the Religion of Atheism. But before you proceed further, we advise you to disconnect your irony meter, because it will surely explode from what you’re about to encounter. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and scripture references omitted:

The number of people who hold to a secular worldview is growing every year. At the heart of this worldview is a belief in evolutionary ideas. These secularists desperately need to hear they’re not related to apes, like they believe, but that they’re created in the image of God who sent His Son to became a man (the God-man) to pay the penalty for their sin and offers salvation.

Yes, dear reader, you desperately need to hear that you ain’t no kin to no monkey. Then he says:

Atheism and secular humanism are religions — blind-faith beliefs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Only a fool would follow a blind-faith religion! After that he tells us:

Atheists and secularists believe life came from nonlife by natural processes, but they can’t explain how that supposedly happened. They also can’t explain how the laws of nature came about by natural processes. Ask an evolutionist for the best evidence of evolution — they usually cite speciation, which has nothing to do with their molecules-to-man belief.

Hambo, on the other hand, can explain everything, because he knows The Truth. He continues:

Those who reject the God of the Bible in favor of atheism have a blind-faith belief. Yes, many secularists don’t think for themselves and just blindly follow the religion of evolution to try to justify their rebellion against God. That’s why many get so emotional about it!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In contrast, Hambo’s followers always think for themselves, and would never blindly follow a religion. Let’s read on:

We need to show atheism for what it is — a religion many secularists are trying to impose on the entire culture.

Hambo would never want his religion imposed on the culture. Another excerpt:

Ultimately, atheism is a religion without any real hope, meaning, or purpose. It’s a blind-faith belief that flies in the face of what is evident around us in creation.

The rest of Hambo’s post is a promotion for a new book that “will help equip you to gently confront atheists with the ultimate hopelessness, meaninglessness, purposelessness, and inconsistency of their own worldview.”

So there you are, dear reader. Your foolishness has been exposed. Buy Hambo’s book and get your mind on the right track — before it’s too late!

Copyright © 2017. 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

Discoveroids’ Hitler Obsession Continues

With no evidence and no research to support their “theory,” one of the Discovery Institute’s favorite tactics is trying to smear Darwin by claiming that Hitler was influenced by his work. This is a classic example of Godwin’s law — that the losing side of a long and hopeless argument inevitably plays the Hitler card.

As we pointed out in Hitler and Darwin by quoting Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Volume Two, Chapter X, Hitler claimed to be acting in accordance with the will of God. And he never even mentioned Darwin. Instead, Hitler clearly indicates that he’s a creationist. Read it for yourself:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.

We have no idea if Hitler actually believed that, but whatever he believed, there’s certainly no “Darwinism” there. On the other hand, in Hitler, Darwin, and … Winston Churchill? — we showed that the World War II leader who actually did read Darwin was Hitler’s principal opponent — Winston Churchill.

The Discoveroids are playing the Hitler card again. This appeared yesterday at their creationist blog: Was Hitler a Creationist? A Christian? Decoding a Famous Quotation from Mein Kampf, written by Richard Weikart. He’s not only a Discoveroid “fellow” (i.e., full-blown creationist), he’s also the author of a book titled From Darwin to Hitler, which influenced James Kennedy, the now-deceased televangelist who made the influential “documentary” Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.

We consider Weikart to be the intellectual godfather of the Discoveroids’ frequently-repeated malicious mantra: “No Darwin, no Hitler.” If he’s not the originator of that foul dogma, he’s certainly one of its principal pillars. Here are some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In the many years I have studied Hitler’s ideology, I have seen the following from Mein Kampf more often than any other: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Because of its theological language, very often this quotation is offered as proof that Hitler was a Christian. Since he used the term Creator here, some even maintain that Hitler was a creationist.

Weikart devotes much of his essay to that little quote, while never mentioning the many references Hitler made to Christianity, and of course he doesn’t reveal that Hitler never — not even once — mentioned Darwin’s name in any of his writings or his speeches. Weikart does cite a few accounts of private conversations with Hitler where he allegedly mentioned evolution, but the sources of that “information” are dubious. Then, giving it his best shot, he says:

Hitler also clearly expressed belief in human evolution in a 1937 speech opening the Munich House of German Art. In this lecture he derided modernist artists, whom he described as being throwbacks to creatures at earlier evolutionary stages. He said:

[Weikart’s quote:] When we know today that the evolution of millions of years, compressed into a few decades, repeats itself in every individual, then this art, we realize, is not “modern.” It is on the contrary to the highest degree “archaic,” far older probably than the Stone Age.

After that quote, Weikart tells us:

This demonstrates that Hitler believed that humans evolved over millions of years.

He doesn’t link to any source for his quote, so we had to go hunting. We found this: Hitler’s Speech at the Opening of the House of German Art in Munich (July 18, 1937), with an introduction that makes it clear that Hitler was ranting against degenerate modern art — that is, he wasn’t talking about Darwin. The Weikart quote (more or less) appears on page four, in these words:

Since we know today that the development [not “evolution”] of millions of years repeats itself in every individual but is compressed into a few decades, we have the proof that an artistic creation that does not surpass the achievement of eight-year-old children is not “modern” or even “futuristic” but is, on the contrary, highly archaic. It probably is not as developed as the art of the Stone Age period, when people scratched pictures of their environment on the walls of caves.

Whatever that was, it wasn’t an embrace of evolution. But it’s all Weikart can find. He continues:

In both Mein Kampf and in his unnamed Second Book, Hitler described the evolutionary process. He claimed that species evolved by procreating prolifically and then engaging in a struggle for existence. “Struggle” was one of Hitler’s favorite words, and he also often used the term selection to describe the outcome of this struggle. The superior species would triumph in the struggle, and the weak and sickly would go to the wall.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That is not the evolutionary process described by Darwin — nor, and here we must repeat ourselves, did Hitler ever attribute his bizarre views to Darwin. Here’s one last excerpt from Weikart’s essay:

While there is some superficial plausibility to the notion that Hitler was a creationist, the evidence I present in [name of Weikart’s book] should lay that mistaken notion to rest. Hitler clearly believed in Darwinian evolution.

That’s the best the Discoveroids can do. Sad, isn’t it?

Copyright © 2017. 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