The Church of PZ “Wackaloon” Myers & Ideological Child Abuse

Yes, the title of this blog is inflammatory. Yes, it’s on purpose. I hope I have your attention.

Recently, I made a comment defending Ken Ham after PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame called him a “wackaloon” and then invited “millions” [dream on, PZ. Neither you nor Darwinism is THAT popular] of others to pour some warm and fuzzies on Mr. Ham. His crime? Attending a voluntary prayer meeting at the Pentagon for Christian employees. PZ, in typical junior high screed, blew it out of proportion and when called to the mat for his lack of professional courtesy, showed his maturity level wrote the blog equivalent of a raspberry. The university this pop biologist teaches at must be very proud. 

I suppose it’s my fault for letting curiosity get the better of me, but I went back to see if my comment had made an impact. Nobody was kind. I didn’t expect them to be. I recognize revival zeal when I see it. They bleated the expected dogma, decided I was just as bad as Ken Ham and then decided I was only an ignorant gomer who’d been duped by Ham. In a word, hubris.

But one comment won the jackpot.

His given name was Dagger. Comment #395 And it is this line for which he wins the prize:

I only regret I have is living in a free society where we can’t forcefully take away your children from you and quietly let your delusional species die out. Shame really.

Keep in mind that Wackaloon Myers’ stated reason for this insult list was to distract and occupy Ken Ham away from his “campaign of abusing the minds of young children.” Back in 2006, there was a rather big row over this sort of nonsense. Richard dawkins and other prominent pop Darwinists have made similar statements. They characterize teaching Creationism and religious instruction in general as mental child abuse.

But which is more detrimental?

Evolution is based on naturalism, the idea that no God or any other supernatural force is needed to explain the universe. While some evolutionists are theists and deists, the naturalism it’s based on is just restated stating atheism.

Is it child abuse to tell a child that a loving God created their universe, that they have a purpose, that life has meaning? Or is it child abuse to tell them they were a cosmic accident, that there is no purpose to the universe, that they really are a monkey’s uncle and that there is no ultimate meaning to their lives?

Seriously, what has atheism contributed to society? Besides Hitler, I mean. Besides Pol Pot. Besides failed ideas like socialism, Communism, Leninism and Marxism. They call a photo of a cross in urine “art.” What has darwinism contributed? Besides Aborigines being displayed in zoos as missing links and hunted down and stuffed in the name of charting the “Descent of Man.” Besides eugenics and Nazi death camps. Besides a scientific stamp of approval on racism.

Naturalism teaches nihilism, relativism and hedonism. It’s no wonder these fundamentalist wackaloons are so rabid and hateful of religious beliefs. What truly bridles them, save societal pressure? And how long will that restraint last?

If God truly exists, teaching children to be irreligious is the worst sort of ideological child abuse, especially if this issue has eternal consequences, as Christendom teaches. Naturalism is a presumption. They have decided that God does not exist, but His existence is not up for a vote! He either exists or he doesn’t. And since these naturalists cannot possibly claim omnipotence, how can they be so sure they are right?

God has set eternity in our hearts. He has, as Pascal put it, given us too much evidence to ignore and too little to be sure. It requires faith, but not blind faith. It requires a reasonable faith.

And much more reasonable than the naturalist’s alternative.

–Sirius Knott

18 Comments Add yours

  1. cindyinsd says:

    Dear Sirius,

    I’m surprised at the comment you excerpted, but really, why would I be surprised? This is the sort of thing that does, in fact, happen in “atheistic” regimes. I place athiesm in quotes because the dictators in such governments generally require or at least encourage in some way, emperor worship.

    These are not people who disbelieve in God. How could they then spend so much time and effort in hating Him? Why do they hate Him? Because He’s God and they’re not?

    No, I think the whole athiestic/humanistic/ evolutionistic thing is precipitated by the devil. That’s where the hatred of God and all things related to Him comes from. It doesn’t make sense in any other context.

    If these poor misguided people really believed what they say they believe, they wouldn’t care what we believe. If I believed what they believe, I might logically just go out and shoot myself. Not that I’m suggesting they do that. I highly recommend they don’t, in fact, because there’s good news–Great news! They’re wrong!

    God bless and keep you,


  2. aniche says:

    everybody wants to just stick with the original unrevised script.

  3. CosmicTeapot says:

    Just to take 1 point of yours; “Evolution is based on naturalism, the idea that no God or any other supernatural force is needed to explain the universe.”

    Wrong – evolution does not concern itself with the the origins of the universe, that is cosmology. Get a dictionary and look up evolution. Don’t confuse it with naturalism (a vague collection of topics at the best of times).

    I would take some of your other points (such as describing the Catholic Hitler as an atheist) but you make so many mistakes that i do not have the time.

    Cindy, you too are wrong. I am an atheist, therefore I do NOT believe in god. It is not a hating something, it is NOT believing in god. Simple concept (except for you obviously).

    Why do we take time to take issue with the religious. 1 reason, because you are trying to replace science in biology classes with creationism. When I go to a doctor, I want them to understand science enough so that they can make me better, not to pray for me.

    Don’t believe in evolution? A drug resistant virus is one that has evolved! Evolutionists / biologists are the people looking at cutting down on things like MRSA.

    I know where I put my belief, in science.

  4. Sirius says:


    You do realize that this is the orthodox [traditional] position of Christendom when it comes to the inspiration of the Scriptures, right?


    Your reductionist take on evolution as only applicable to biological entities is a well-known straw man. As stated, darwinism [as it insists that God is not necessary to explain the diversity of life] is based on naturalism. Or are you stating that you believe God created life or the universe and used evolution to develop life? Or had you thought out the implications of your beliefs? [Most Darwinists haven’t]

    I’m aware that some of you [someone else has brought this up besides you] want to paint Hitler as a Catholic ala Hitchens or Harris, but this reductionist tactic is simply an attempt to repaint history into an antireligious picture. Hitler went to a Catholic school and was a nominal Catholic at best. I don’t think you could even get the Pope to say he went to Heaven, because if he was a Catholic he was a monstrous hypocrite. Yet how interesting that it was his obsession with Darwin and the implications of his theory for a master race that fueled his mad schemes of world conquest and Holocaust. You guys always like to gloss this one over, simply because evolutionism led to some really nasty implications for science-approved racism and even science-approved ethnic cleansing. All of science was looking for ways to prove Darwin’s theory, killing and stuffing pygmies and aborigines and putting men in zoos as they tried to chart out which races were more evolved than the others. You’ve since recanted the original racist position of darwinism, that some ethnicities are more evolved than others, and now sagely note that all variations of skin color were undoubtedly present from the emergence of man. This is where politically correctness and societal pressure tempers the implications of a theory. At one time all good Darwinists were proud little scientific racists and this was the message that Hitler latched onto. Deal with it. It’s your theory; don’t you realize its implications?

    I’ve addressed your false dichotomy between science and creationism [religion versus science, superstition versus science or reason] in several posts. [btw, it is correctly stated as naturalistic science versus creationist science OR atheistic science versus theistic science]. Most recently, I’ve posted this as yet unchallenged [save for some bits of off-topic screed] set of arguments :

    As for the statement that a virus mutating is evolution, you’re projecting your presuppositions onto the data. Creationists admit to observed adaptations within kinds of animals, but we do not admit to unobserved, speculated common descent of the molecules to man sort of evolution. The mutation or adaptation of a virus has nothing to do with metaphysical theories of origins and everything to do with observable, testable science. Too, finding a cure has nothing to do with common descent or creation and everything to do with what we can actually test and observe. So go take your poorly thatched straw man somewhere else.

    –Sirius Knott

  5. bob says:

    “Hitler went to a Catholic school and was a nominal Catholic at best.”

    Hi, No True Scotsman fallacy! Didn’t expect to see you here! How are the kids? Oh, they’re not true Scots? You don’t say …

    I suppose those priests who raped children were also only “nominal Catholic[s] at best.”

    You might want to get rid of your own logical fallacies before you go bonkers claiming other people are using them.

  6. Eric Kemp says:


    “I know where I put my belief, in science.”

    At least he’s honest about putting faith in science to explain the unobservable past.

    CT, do you realize that your belief in science is leading inevitably to your own annihilation, no matter how good or bad you are? In fact, it’s worse than that, IF you’re correct and there is nothing but matter out there, you will be annihilated. But IF you’re wrong, your beliefs are misplaced, and you’ve been offending a very real God this whole time, you’ll be wishing for annihilation. So your choices are annihilation or hell. Is that kind of belief worth it to you?

  7. bob says:

    And now we have Pascal’s wager, with some added fire and brimstone (‘annihilation’ … ooh, ahh). That sounds great, except for the teeny tiny issue that you’re assuming you picked the right deity.

    What if Thor is actually the god who created the universe? Who’s to say he won’t be more angry at those who gravely insulted him by worshiping a false idol?

  8. Sirius says:


    I hate to nitpick, but no religious source cites Thor as a Creator. Perhaps if you actually did some research before you popped off your screed….

    But we haven’t assumed anything, bob. we’ve examined the evidence. The Norse gods and their Greco-Roman counterparts fall short of the observable data due to their failure to account for the condition of universal moral law. The gods in question could not even hold themselves to such morality [and often held themselves above it] even though they ofttimes judged the world for wickedness.

    And I see you’ve misapplied the No True Scotsman fallacy, as so many atheists do. The No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply to well defined philosophies, specifically where they actually define the terms of a true adherent and a, well, hypocrite. The idea was that a Scotsman is a Scotsman. All this is required is to be Scottish. Assigning any other requirements because a Scotsman did something you don’t think someone should do is futile and fallacious, especially if the objection is stated after the fact! But Christendom has a well defined set of conditions for a true Christian that have been stated well over 1940 years prior to Hitler’s time. Equally, it defines hypocrisy quite well. It also states that while Christians may act hypocritically that anyone who exhibits a pattern of hypocrisy -especially gross hypocrisy on the level of the Holocaust – is a hypocrite, all ofwhom have a guaranteed place in the lake of fire.

    –Sirius Knott

  9. Eric Kemp says:


    To claim that the claims of Christianity are equal to the claims of ANY other religion is to be ignorant of what Christ claimed for Himself.

    But if I’ve picked the wrong religion, then I’ll be annihilated just like you, no harm no foul. But if you’re wrong….

  10. Sirius says:

    Oh and, bob, Cosmic Teaputz and any other wackaloon responding to this post,

    Before we go any further, I’ve noticed that you guys can’t seem to ever post a comment on the topic-at-hand, so I require you to answer a simple question:

    Do YOU advocate removing children from religious homes?

    –Sirius Knott

  11. CosmicTeaputz says:

    True, I did go off topic. However, you did make several fallacious statements in your rabid “what has atheism contributed to society?” rant, which I responded to.

    The views of Dagger were of little interest to me in comparision.

    I will respond to your rebuttal of my initial response after work. Maybe we can both learn something.

    But to answer your question, no, I do not advocate removing chidren from religious homes, just because they are taught religion.

    Off topic again, my apologies to Cindy. I was a little rude.

    Cosmic Teaputz, I like that. Very good.

  12. bob says:

    Why on earth would you suspect that I want children removed from religious homes? You’re projecting. Remember, you are the theist and I am the atheist. You are the one who must listen to authority figures and stick to dogma. I am under no obligation to subscribe to any prominent atheist’s opinion or written word. Stop trying to pin your irrationality on me.

    As for the Thor comment, my sincerest apologies. Since religion is *at best* 100*((X-1)/X)% incorrect (where X is the total number of religions in history), I don’t bother keeping up with the tenets of each one. I’ll be sure to brush up on my mythologies before commenting, lest you again focus on a trivial line to insult my sarcastic off-hand example rather than address my main point.

    Finally, your and Eric’s comments about various religions do nothing but demonstrate your prejudice. This isn’t surprising, of course, but it’s illustrative of the sorts of opinions and arguments you must hold if you assume a priori that a certain belief system is correct.

    Sirius, you talk about some kind of absolute moral law that gods outside your own “fail” to provide or live up to. This statement is laughable; the bible is chock full of examples of your god committing and encouraging despicable behavior. Your god is certainly no better than any other god by any moral standard. The only difference is that you treat Greek, Norse , and countless other mythologies as merely myths, but you think your myths are special and true.

    Eric, you make some nonsensical statement that I think claims that your god is awesome because he says he’s awesome. Hmmm, how profound. I suspect that’s a perfectly circular line of reasoning that every deity’s believers cite. (Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sirius finds one that doesn’t and then mocks my lack of research.)

    I’m glad I decided to keep coming back here. It’s encouraging to see that, with only minor prodding, your arguments still devolve to simple prejudices and lines like “nuh uh, my god did it, because someone told me he said he did it.” Great. Lots of people told me that, too, but then I started thinking for myself.

  13. Sirius says:


    I’m not projecting. I’m asking a question – a question which happens to be the subject of this post. Do you EVER pay attention, sir?

    My comment about Thor is what we used to refer as a polite warning. It’s something gentlemen do when they see someone else going in over their heads. [You’re not only going in over your head, you’ve tried to say the waterline is still below you!] It happens that my area of expertise is Christianity, specifically, and theology and philosophy, generally. I also have a strong aptitude for trivial things like cosmology, geology, archaeology, quantum physics an such. But let’s go back to theology.

    You, bob, are making half-cocked statements about theology and making an ass out of yourself in the process. Didn’t ANYONE learn anything from Dawkins’ miserable intrusion into theology?

    Now, I noticed that you’re copping out with the whole “there are sooooo mannnnnnny religions” straw man. Variations on this poorly patched doll include the fallacy that we can never know the true religion as a result of the number of religions available and the fallacy that they must all be false because there are so many. BOTH of these straw men [whether supported by bogus formulae or not] fly in the face of REASON. Yes, reason. Reason is the process whereby we take available choices and determine which one is false or the other way round. Science is based in part on rational argument. For example, we can start with the law of noncontradiction. [Two contradictory truth claims cannot both be true]. Then we can move on to which truth claims are internally [no contradictions] and externally consistent [accurately describe the world, accurately record history, geography, et cetera]. Then we can check out the credibility of the religion’s authority [bibliographical evidence, credibility of originators, et cetera]. In the end, you will find that only Christianity fits the bill, btw.

    If numerous choices make finding the truth impossible then reason is dead. If numerous contradictory claims make all choices invalid, then reason and science’s quest for truth are rediculous. Of course, neither of these conditions are true, which is why only idiots parrot the “the are soooo mannnny religions” straw man.

    I’ve already answered one critics rather detailed list of indictments to God’s character [ ] and answered the objection generally as well [ ]. You might want to take a look so that you don’t repeat him. And, yes, I will require you to be more specific about these alleged immoral acts. Sweeping generalities are hubris.

    And I’m afraid that I must decry your other sweeping generalization regarding the “perfectly circular reasoning” used by those who believe in God. You’ve not shown yourself to be an expert [or even competent] in matters of religion or reason [note the sheer number of straw men I’ve pointed out and your various misapplications of well-known logical fallacies].

    Rather than evidencing a man who has examined the evidence for himself and come to a rational conclusion on the merits of the arguments [i.e. – rather than thinking for yourself, as you claim], your evident ignorance of the matters we’ve discussed suggests quite the opposite: that you’ve adopted someone else’s arguments and are doing a poor job of bleating them back out. bob, I know what I believe. I even know why I believe it.

    Are you really going to offer up this weak kung fu and then tell me you’ve mastered rather than poorly mimicked?

    be honest,
    Sirius Knott

  14. Eric Kemp says:


    “Finally, your and Eric’s comments about various religions do nothing but demonstrate your prejudice.”

    You ignore your own prejudice against God (or gods, whatever). You find yourself above assumptions and are not even honest enough to admit them after they are pointed out to you.

    ” I am under no obligation to subscribe to any prominent atheist’s opinion or written word. Stop trying to pin your irrationality on me.”

    You are under obligation to reject the supernatural a priori. You are under obligation to believe that a YEC knows nothing about science by default. You are under obligation to reject any argument that has God as an essential factor. You are under obligation to think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. You have stuck to these obligations dogmatically, without ever acknowledging them or questioning them. Well done, you are a “good” athiest (eventhough you can’t have any universal explanation for what “good” is).

    “Eric, you make some nonsensical statement that I think claims that your god is awesome because he says he’s awesome. Hmmm, how profound. I suspect that’s a perfectly circular line of reasoning that every deity’s believers cite.”

    When did I EVER state anything close to this? Once? Anyone? Beuller?

  15. bob says:

    Alright, killer, I’m done. Your statement that “only Christianity fits the bill, btw,” where you seem to mean ‘reality’ by ‘the bill’ did me in.

    Of *course* you would say that. You assumed *a priori* that Christianity is true. With that assumption, there is *no* way to come to any other conclusion than “Christianity is true.” It’s akin to assuming that Bigfoot exists, then using that assumption during your construction of a proof that Bigfoot exists.

    The only reason your assumption holds any weight is history. For the past few handfuls of centuries (save the past few, thankfully), everyone in the western world HAD to operate under your a priori assumption, lest they be tortured to death as heretics. Without that history, your assumption would be as (in)valid as assuming Nessie *definitely* exists before analyzing blurry pictures of floating logs.

    People who do that are dismissed as cranks by any rational person. There is no sensible reason not to do the same to you and your ilk (save an illogical appeal to history, popularity, or authority).

    You made some silly comment about weak kung fu there at the end … what on earth are you talking about? Your awe-inspiring response to my critique of your circular logic amounted to “you made straw men before!” (Which I disagree with and would take the time to refute, if there were a point to arguing with someone who finds huge false premises a valid part of logical reasoning.)

    Uh, what? You assumed your god exists, and then concluded your god exists. The only reason people don’t think this is insane is because you got burned alive for questioning that sentiment aloud for the majority of the history of western civilization!

    Again, I’m out. I’ve truly wasted my time here … why bother arguing against the conclusion “A” when people assume “A” before they start arguing? Oh well.

  16. Sirius says:


    As much as I hate to upset someone else’s biased assumptions when they’re accusing me in kind, I didn’t assume God exists a priori.

    While I grew up in church, I rejected Christianity when I became a teenager, embraced Darwinism, Liberalism and Agnosticism. I never became an atheist, but I figured that since science could neither prove nor disprove God, it must not be answerable. That was my cop-out.

    Then came a day where intellectual honesty required that I decide exactly how I felt about God. I still think agnostics are intellectual cowards and frauds, even though I once was one, because if you think there might even be the hint that there is a God, it’s simply in your best interests to see whether that’s reasonably true or not — and if it is, to determine what that God might expect of you!

    Now, you assumed that I assumed my God exists. And you also assume [and I feel I am being more than fair in this assessment since you are human and therefore NOT omniscient] there is no God from the outset. Which is a slap in the face of reason. You see, a religion may take such a leap of faith, but what of atheism? Yep, you’re an inconsistent little hypocrite.

    Oh, and yes you’ve got horrible sense when it comes to argument: straw men, misapplication of logical fallacies and plain old ignorance.

    I digress.

    I came back to the faith kicking and screaming, but when I examined the evidence [taking the route I outlined in my previous comment] I found that God most certainly did exist. How did I do that? Well, again, I looked at the evidence. Let’s use your Bigfoot analogy. You presume that I’ve presumed that X exists beforehand and then concluded that X exists. But that’s not what happened at all. I’d been told that X exists and, since I do not live in a day and age where they burn folks at the stake for critical inquiry [straw man], that there was evidence to this effect. I examined this evidence, looked up critiques and rebuttals against the evidence, weighed the matter and came to a conclusion. We call this independent thought. If we were discussing Bigfoot or Nessie, you might say I’d heard that some people say they exist, I looked at their evidence [footprint casts, grainy photos, film of monkey-suited actors strolling through the forest], I compared it with rebuttals of the same and then came to my own conclusions.

    Since we’re discussing God, I’ll be more specific. My primary concern was Christianity, since that was the religion I’d rejected for most of a decade. So I investigated the Resurrection and the reliability of the Bible. The Resurrection account is pretty much airtight. The fulfilled prophecies of Bible pretty much sold me on its reliability. Fulfilled prophecies [especially with the frequency and specificity of Biblical prophecy] are evidence of the supernatural. A miracle [a flock of them!], if you will. If there are miracles, there is most certainly a God. If the Resurrection accounts are true, that God is most certainly Christ Jesus.

    My Creationist views came much later.

    Now, I realize you were trying to pull off a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn association here. It’s a fairly common and easily refuted tactic of inexperienced atheists. Just associate God with fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot or something else equally fantastical and preposterous. It says more about your presuppositional biases than it does anything else.

    On a final note, I can think of a much better reason to stop arguing with me than your being unable to convince me of your position [that negative presupposition of omniscience called “there is no God”]: You should stop arguing because I’m right. [And because your kung fu is weak. Seriously. Get help or something. You’re making your team look bad.]

    –Sirius Knott

  17. Robert Ayers says:

    Defending Ken Ham, what better a way to show you’re stupid and a waste of time.

    1. Actually, trolling sites you disagree with only to leave behind unqualified ad hominem rather than engaging arguments you can’t refute… that’s a much better way to “show you’re stupid and a waste of time.” If it was such a waste of time, why did you waste your time commenting about what a wste of time it was, Bob?

      Thank you for providing yet more evidence for If Evolutionists Were Smart… This sort of shoddy commitment to logical argument is exactly why USAmericans have such low math and science scores as a result of our evolutionist-controlled science education.

      -Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s