If Evolutionists Were Smart…

I know. I know. Most of the current scientific establishment, Big Science if you will, the intelligensia, allegedly the greatest minds of our time are supposed to be evolutionists. And here I am, crackpot creationist extraoridinaire, suggesting that they aren’t all that smart.

They’re not.

I’m not even sure we can reasonably grant that they’re intelligent. Intelligence tends to challenge the prevailing notions, to push the envelope, to expand the scope of knowledge and human potential. Big Science seems more interested in chasing after grants, tenure and protecting their own interests. They not only go with the flow, following along with lemming-like ardor, they criticize anyone who goes against it. No salmon allowed. Galileo, Copernicus and Darwin all challenged the paradigms of their day. Today, they would be ostracized, criticized and generally ridiculed by the likes of  PZ Myers and his rather rabid fan base. Yes, fan base. They would be kept out of peer-reviewed journals and then criticized for not having their work in peer-reviewed journals. Their work would be called pseudoscience without ever considering it seriously. They would be subject to pernicious personal attacks from those who hold to the Party line. They would be denied grants, tenure and visibility because they weren’t bleating the right things, rather than because their work was credible or not.

I digress.

The Darwin Party is making a Big Mistake.

If they were smart, they’d stop attacking people and start testing their ideas.  Continue reading

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

PZ Invites Insult to Ken Ham. My Response.

Recently, PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame called Ken Ham a “wackaloon.” Understandably, Mr. Ham called him to the mat for his lack of professional courtesy [You see, professionals attack the subject matter, not the person they’re debating.] and for his lop-sided bias against Christians. [The only intolerance still allowed.] Ken Ham’s rebuttal is priceless, btw. So PZ proved how little professionalism he actually has. If nothing else comes of this, this whole episode serves as an object lesson as to why we should not cast pearls before swine. Yes, I just called PZ a pig. Maybe I should have called him a hamaloon or a hogaloon or a wackaswine, but then I’d be just as silly as he is. Not to mention his proselytes…

The following is a comment [#377] I left for PZ Myers and his readership in response to a post called Pharyngula: In Which I Have Hurt Ken Ham’s Feelings, in which PZ scoffs at the idea that professionals ought to engage one another with professional courtesy and that, besides, he’s only expressing a bit of what other antiCreationists feel for him. In a move typical of PZ’s junior high style of rhetoric, he invites others to “be creative” and “express their true feelings about Ken Ham” to somehow keep him occupied and distracted from his “campaign of abusing the minds of young children.”

Hubris. But this sort of tactic is being used increasingly by the new atheist fundamentalists. It seems they grow weary with argument and hope now to win arguments by shouting the loudest.

Anyway, my response:


Sticks and stones, brother. Sticks and stones.

Yet your exasperation suggests that perhaps we are gaining ground. [Though I’d be satisfied with simply getting on your nerves since I’ve no hope a zealot such as yourself would actually deign to listen to the other guy’s argument.] Has one too many Academic Freedom bill been taken too seriously for your dogmatic tastes? Has your naturalistic monopoly on truth [or, more precisely, the ability to indoctrinate others into what you believe is truth] been threatened?

But certainly you could provide us with evidence that evolution is more reasonable than Creation, right? Surely, you could. Or does the evidence suit each theory equally well? But your rancor seems to betray a weakness, a shuddering doubt, an involuntary admission of fundamentalist fervor.

I’ve no doubt you will re-affirm your faith in reply to this post. You will protest that it’s all pots and kettles. You’ll patch up the thatch on the old religion versus science Straw Man. And your faithful bleating converts will come running to your defense as always, each hoping to out-do the other in their zeal to defend their favored prophet. Gimme that old time religion, and all that.

So be it. Give us your rancor, your hate, your bile, your insults, your stereotypical junior high pratcalls. Truth will out. Freedom of Inquiry will have its day. We will follow the evidence where it leads, whether you approve or not, even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today’s scientififc dogma. It was Darwin’s right and privilege to challenge the accepted scientific truth of his day. It was Galileo’s as well. Science is supposed to be self-correcting,after all.

As for Mr. Ham. God bless you, sir. Ignore the trolls. It’s only sticks and stones. And it has NOTHING to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.

–Sirius Knott