Now on ScienceBlogs: Open Lab PSA
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« More Distortions on the Good News Case | Main | Balko on Videotaping the Police »
Posted on: June 21, 2007 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton
I think this bizarre screed by Linda Kimball at Mensnewsdaily may be the single dumbest anti-evolution article ever written. I'm not going to bother with a line by line fisking, you all can have fun with that yourselves. I just wanna offer up one quote:
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin's advice.
Here's what makes that really funny: Dahmer's father is a creationist who has lectured widely on creationism and raised him as a creationist. Oops.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
PZ Myers 11.09.2009
PZ Myers 11.09.2009
Ed Brayton 11.09.2009
"GrrlScientist" 11.09.2009
Orac 11.08.2009
Comments
Oh my god...I lost a lot of brain cells reading that. It really is the stupidest one ever.
Ahhhhhhhh...
And what is up with her formatting?
Posted by: nicole | June 21, 2007 9:25 AM
Wow--this is screed in its purest form. As I have said on other blogs, I don't see reason to dissect such rubbish line by line, so I will instead just comment on the line that gave me a belly laugh: "...the animalization of Americans...". It reminded me of that great scene in "Field of Dreams" where the community is assembled in the school gym to hear discussion about a controversial book, and a local wingnut is ranting about how it promotes various ideals, including "the mongrelization of the races".
Oink, moo, baaa, cluck cluck cluck.........
Posted by: a fellow Michigander | June 21, 2007 9:30 AM
"The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice." --Sir Arthur Keith (1947, p.230)
How does one rigorously practice evolution?
Posted by: Dono | June 21, 2007 9:51 AM
Ed: can you provide a link to an article backing up your claim about Dahmer's dad? A great claim, like a great general, deserves support.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 21, 2007 9:52 AM
Ed: can you provide a link to an article backing up your claim about Dahmer's dad? A great claim, like a great general, deserves support.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 21, 2007 9:54 AM
"Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas."
Right, because before Charles Darwin, there was no such thing as murder and war, and ideologues never tried to force their religion or culture on others through the use of violence and force.
I still think this is a worse treatment of evolution per se. Kimball doesn't attempt to refute the actual science underlying evolution, but Bradfield does, and the results are calamitous.
Posted by: kemibe | June 21, 2007 10:01 AM
Wow! Start off claiming that all bad things springs forth from The Origin Of Species. (I had no idea that I was so related to New Age thought. All this time I hated woo as much as other religions. Shows my ignorance.) Then spew forth a bunch of quotes in random order regardless of what they truly meant.
Best left in the dustbin of history.
Posted by: Janine | June 21, 2007 10:07 AM
It gets right under my skin every time I hear someone claim that atheism "demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases." That works real well, until you run into somebody bigger than you. Ethics, cooperation, and eventually a mature society under the rule of law can develop under nothing more than intelligent self-interest - without any need for threats of eternal torture in a mythical afterlife. I grant you, it does take INTELLIGENT self-interest - for people such as Ms. Kimball, we're probably better off with an imaginary entity to control her.
Posted by: BobApril | June 21, 2007 10:09 AM
Ok, It's amazingly stupid. However, I do submit this article as a serious contender:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/062007/06032007/288263
Posted by: Bjorn | June 21, 2007 10:47 AM
Holy freakin ellipses Batman! Just a quick scroll through those quotes and I encounter veritable forests of the little buggers. When you can't even make it through one sentence without using 3 of them you have a problem:
"...can have for his rule of life...those impulses and instincts which are strongest or...seem to him the best ones." (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)
Posted by: Robert | June 21, 2007 11:24 AM
You call that dumb? DaveScot at UD has chucks of his stool dumber than that, and the sycophantic bloggers at his site are routinely that dumb. Even Dr. Dr. Dembksi has been that dumb lately, even linking on his OWN SITE to news that is bad for ID.
Take home lesson: Never underestimate the Power of Dumbness in a right-wing, red-necked IDCist.
Posted by: J-Dog | June 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Darwin's? ...or the Catholic Church's advice? Afterall, communion is just ritualized cannibalism.
Note: I don't actually believe that Catholicism is to blame any more than evolution. I'm just saying that we can easily play the blame game in just about any direction we choose.
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 21, 2007 11:49 AM
Bobapril observed: It gets right under my skin every time I hear someone claim that atheism "demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases." That works real well, until you run into somebody bigger than you.
Indeed, or worse yet, just open your eyes and look around you. There is no greater example of how people making that claim value conjecture over data, for it is patently obvious that atheism does none of those things.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 21, 2007 12:26 PM
There was just very recently a blog post and discussion about being nice and not calling Creationists fools, liars, IDiots, etc. Then posts like Kimball's come up and what naturally comes to mind is "where did these shit-for-brains fools go to school? Do they not realize how incredibly moronic they appear?"
Posted by: mark | June 21, 2007 12:35 PM
It seems to me that radical evil, like the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer, is more often the result of extreme reaction to creationism and literal-Bible-style morality preaching than it is a consequence of careful consideration of the evidence, even if that consideration is based on philosophical naturalism.
Wankers like Linda Kimball never stop to think about the fact that biologists and anthropoligists don't react against monogamy or altruism in humans, but instead simply study it. As far as personal philosophies, Kimball and her intellectual fellow travelers generally complain about any act of altruism humanists (or anyone else) asks.
It's too much to ask them simply to stick to the facts?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 21, 2007 12:36 PM
A Google of "Dahmer +creationism" will turn up a variety of sources. Check out the one at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer#Aftermath
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 21, 2007 12:41 PM
Raging Bee-
Do a google search on "lionel dahmer AND creationism" and you will find lots of evidence for it. He's been doing pro-creationism speaking and agitating for decades.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 21, 2007 12:44 PM
Little Jeffery's pappy is listed at AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Posted by: triviality | June 21, 2007 12:44 PM
Dono asked:
By evolving, of course. I understand Pat Robertson is pretty good at it.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 21, 2007 1:09 PM
What's the evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer was raised as a creationist (or a fundamentalist)? Do we know when Lionel Dahmer became an advocate for creationism? Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that he used belief in evolution as a justification for his actions, which AiG quotes from his interview with Stone Phillips (though I'd attribute it to other childhood problems).
Jeffrey Dahmer became a born-again and a creationist around 1994 (he was baptised in May 1994) while in prison, allegedly after reading a bunch of Institute for Creation Research books.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 21, 2007 2:45 PM
testtest>/strike>
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 21, 2007 3:20 PM
testtest
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 21, 2007 3:20 PM
"America, the "moral force that defeated communism" is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural."
Wow, so much crap in one sentence. I've never understood the concept that acceptance of evolution is somehow at odds with being a theist. Funny how my Wiccan, Asatruar and non-fundamentalist Christian friends never seem to have a problem with it. It makes me wonder what her thoughts on geology are. "Plate tectonics? But, you didn't say Jesus! Oh noes, it's teh godless!!11!1"
Another funny line:
"Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as 'vegetable,' "non-persons," and 'uterine content.'"
I don't know. Vegetable, as a term for a brain dead body on life support, sounds a lot more compassionate to me than "meat pillow." Gotta get me some of that tasty "uterine content" too. Who knew that euphemisms were one of the great evils of evolution?
Posted by: Slumbuzzle | June 21, 2007 3:56 PM
Here's what makes that really funny: Dahmer's father is a creationist who has lectured widely on creationism and raised him as a creationist. Oops.
Well, to give this a little context - I don't know when Dahmer's father became a creationist, but he has claimed it was after Dahmer was arrested. Both the father and Dahmer himself have made the requisite revivalist statements about "We fell away from the faith and look what happened!" etc. I saw an interview with Dahmer (and because of it I'll never expect any other serial killer to show any insight into himself ever) in which he said to his dad, "And thank God you gave me that creationist book! When you teach people that they come from the slime they act like slime," etc. And Dahmer's father said that, "I wonder what would have happened if I'd stayed a Christian, blah, blah." Yes, I find these "we backslid and that's why" stories bogus, but be aware that Dahmer's father is using his son as street-cred in this manner.
Which is disgusting in itself.
Posted by: Kristine | June 21, 2007 6:21 PM
Have unprotected sex next to a nuclear reactor?
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 22, 2007 3:56 AM
Linda Kimball Wrote: Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
June 19, 2007 at 11:48 am · Filed under Vox Populi
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
Her work is great. We need more people like her to defend Creationism.
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Posted by: James Collins | June 22, 2007 10:43 AM
James,
Did you post that so we can skewer it? If so, thanks. Let's see...
Nope, can't do it. Creating a cell from scratch by hand would involve some fairly difficult movement of atoms in combinations that are not normally stable. But that's today - what are you going to say if somebody manages it next year or next century? Will you shut up then? Science doesn't claim to be able to do everything - unlike an omnipotent deity. But we're still working on it.
Something happened once in a few billion years with an entire planet as a petri dish, and millions of other planets as similar petri dishes where the experiment evidently failed - and you expect us to recreate it in a year or two in a small pot. This is your argument? That because something is rare it is impossible? Nonetheless, you're right, we should be trying it - after all, just because the odds are against doesn't mean we can't "draw a royal flush" and have it happen in the lab. However, even if we manage it, I'll bet you'll claim that we contaminated the experiment with life from the outside world. Can you promise you won't? Because if you won't accept proof when presented, there's no point in us working to provide it to you. Oh, and the word is "voila." Walla is half a city in Washington.
Posted by: BobApril | June 22, 2007 11:06 AM
Nope, can't do it. Creating a cell from scratch by hand would involve some fairly difficult movement of atoms in combinations that are not normally stable. But that's today - what are you going to say if somebody manages it next year or next century? Will you shut up then? Science doesn't claim to be able to do everything - unlike an omnipotent deity. But we're still working on it.
No no no Bob! It's a TRICK! All James and his fellow sheep would do then is claim that Intelligent Design had been proven by the experiment. I can see the DI headline:
"SCIENTISTS PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"
James is just trying to trick scientists into doing the work for the ID public rela... scientists in hiding.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 22, 2007 11:21 AM
Build a cell from scratch? Nope, impossible, event the evolutionists admit. But just wait and see they say, someday we will, they claim. Of course they will not and cannot. Their left hand says it can't be done but their right hand says it can be done, it's just too complex to undertake today.
Some science, evolution, they can't even get the first stage to work. Of course many of them will go to their grave waiting to see the man made cell. Never, no never, will they question the god of Darwin, heaven forbid. After all didn't their professor pound into heads all the so-called proofs for evolution.
By the way, where are their proofs? I have lived a very long time and I've yet to see any proof of evolution. Of course there have been lots of claims but no real proof.
Sad, so very sad, that so many people are chasing an 'evolved' rainbow. But, that's their privilege, however they still deserve our pity.
Jim
Posted by: James Collins | June 22, 2007 12:12 PM
Jim ,
Perhaps, you can look at Staph infections as proof of evolution or many virus that have evolved ...
Posted by: Vic Vanity | June 22, 2007 4:36 PM
Jim, the proofs are out there. When you open your eyes, you'll see them. There's links all over this site, books a'plenty in the library. There's absolutely no proof for the creationist position - every attempt has been immediately destroyed by internal contradictions and logical fallacies. Until you can offer something better than "You haven't replicated evolution, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa," then you have nothing to add to the discussion.
We can try to show you the evidence, if you show signs of an open mind. But as they say, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Apparently the same is true for a horse's ass.
And with that, I'll quit feeding the troll.
Posted by: BobApril | June 22, 2007 5:31 PM
No Bobapril, there is NO proof for evolution. Zero, zilch, NONE, And, staff infections are NOT proof of evolution. Check it out, you will find that the staff is still a staff, it just so happened that the weaker ones all got killed and now we are faced, temporarily, with the tougher guys that are able to kill the germs a little better. This change is NOT proof of Macro-evolution, just an occurrence of micro-evolution which never develops into another kind of creature. Plain as that.
Of course most evolutionists will continue to believe their mythology, no matter what evidence contrary to evolution. is presented.
Posted by: James Collins | June 22, 2007 5:50 PM
Yeah, James, my whole staff got infected so I fired them. But staff is still not staph. That's the same argument a guy at work gave me many years ago, only he was insisting that a horse was still a horse, (of course)even if the new horse is a thoroughbred, and the old horse a Hyracatherium. I suggested he place a very large wager on a Hyracatherium next Kentucky Derby.
Posted by: mark | June 23, 2007 9:07 AM
James , Natural selection/ Adaption is a mechanism of evolution . you, even suggested so your self when you pointed out microevoltuion
Posted by: Vic Vanity | June 23, 2007 12:51 PM
James,
Do you think our inability to create heavier than air flying machines proves that God created birds? Do you think that our inability to create a light source that doesn't produce heat is proof that God created fireflies? If not then why does our inability to make a cell prove anything? There is a reason the "God of the gaps" arguement is a fallacy.
Posted by: David Holland | June 24, 2007 12:01 PM