…and this is a 
We've got a live one!
Category: Creationism • Kooks
Posted on: February 21, 2008 10:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Some of you may be reluctant to delve into the fiery melee that are the Pharyngula comments, but you're missing a very entertaining battle. We had a creationist named Steven pop by last night to offer his, um, opinions. Here's a brief summary of some of his sillier claims.
Darwin was a racist.
Christianity never supported slavery.
The 15th and 16th century slave trade was driven by the Dutch and Portugese, who were not Christian.
Scientists were responsible for the slave trade, not Christians.
Robert E. Lee converted to Christianity late in life — he was an atheist! He became an abolitionist after he became a Christian.
Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson ran for the presidency of the Confederate States of America on the platform of abolition.
Georgia was an abolitionist state.
American slaves were better off here than they were in Africa. Slavery was good for them.
Hitler was an atheist. The Holocaust was the product of Darwinist teaching.
Oh, yeah…evolution is false. The infall of cosmic dust to earth means that, if the earth were millions of years old, it ought to be touching the sun. Sedimentary layers at Mt St Helens. Snail shells give incorrect carbon dates. Nebraska man. Cro-Magnon man looks human. Harris and Klebold, those famous biologists, were bad people. Bombardier beetles. It's like the Index to Creationist Claims was written for this guy.
Oh, and he's very confident of his claims, and is bragging about how he's defeating all of us mental midgets.
The stupid is radiating off that thread in eyeball-melting waves, but we so rarely get the classic creationists with IQs that limbo that low in here anymore that I thought some of you might want to join in the feeding frenzy.
Comments
So basically, originally Robert E. Lee and the Portuguese and Dutch and atheists and stuff, were all in the right. It was those Christian Abolitionists who wanted those slaves to live uncomfortable lives in freedom...
Ow. The stupid. It hurts.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | February 21, 2008 10:10 AM
Robert E Lee was an atheist who ran for presidency of the CSA? Were in the heck do they get that? This a joke or is this what the Fundymentalists really telling each other? If someone has a link I would love to see it.
Posted by: Bob L | February 21, 2008 10:26 AM
If slavery was good for them, then why wasn't it being supported by Christians?
Posted by: Dave S. | February 21, 2008 10:29 AM
Don't worry. It can't be too long before one of two things happen:
1) His AOL trial CD expires.
2) He accidentally turns off his lights, and falls asleep, believing it to be night.
Posted by: DaveX | February 21, 2008 10:35 AM
But wait, if both Protestants and Catholics are not Christian, what denomination is left to claim the title of True Christian™?
Posted by: Rienk | February 21, 2008 10:35 AM
I am not even American, and never studied much in the way of American history at school (It was Tudors and Stuarts on the syllabus I did) but even I know that is total bullshit.
Shouldn't an American be ashamed when a Brit knows more about American history than he does ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Awww shucks...Steven was so thoughtful, he brought his sock-puppet Sonny with him! What a treat.
Posted by: RussRules | February 21, 2008 10:40 AM
I'll never understand why modern-day Confederate apologists are so proud of their military history of constant defeat. They're like the France of America.
Posted by: TTT | February 21, 2008 10:41 AM
"I'll never understand why modern-day Confederate apologists are so proud of their military history of constant defeat.
They're like the France of America."
Worse, they do not seem to be able to produce decent food and wine like France does. You can forgive France a lot for giving the world Brie, Roquefort, Champagne, Armangac ....... . Grits somehow do not cut it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 10:45 AM
TTT, I don't intend to sympathize with Confederate apologists, as I find them disgusting, but it was hardly "constant defeat".
The CSA had far superior commanding officers (at least until Lincoln appointed Grant) and was waging a defensive war. It was amazing (and unfortunate) that they held out as long as they did, given the North's population and industrial advantages. At the start of the war, both sides had the idea that it would be over quickly -- the North because of their on-paper military superiority, and the South because they didn't believe that the North had the will to continue a long war.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | February 21, 2008 10:50 AM
Actually, I think the Confeds are much more like the Italians than the French in terms of not winning. You know how it goes:
"We had them last time, it's your turn"
"How about best of three?"
"No way, we aren't taking them, it's definitely your turn".
Vive la Resistance!
And about Christians and slavery, um....
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/21.html#28
h/t Sadly, No!
Posted by: Caveat | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM
Ooof. I can't tell which is worse, your creationist's denial of basic historical facts or that you are likely reinforcing his notion that all scientists have fangs with this schoolyard intellectual bullying.
Posted by: Arctic Oak | February 21, 2008 10:52 AM
How can we combat such ignorance, incorrectness, and just plain assumptive stupidity?
Posted by: Jefe | February 21, 2008 10:55 AM
I like to think of 'fundamental' as an portmanteau of 'fundament' (the ass) and 'mental' (batshit crazy).
(It grows on you.)
Posted by: WTFWJD | February 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Shit, I went to bed too early last night.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Wow... Steven dear, please read this http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml It'll make it a lot less painful next time you try to engage someone in a "rational" discussion.
I've enjoyed watching the goings-on. :D
Posted by: Laura | February 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Apparently he mistook the Ahistorical garbage in the post title as an invitation, rather than a description.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 21, 2008 11:00 AM
"Ooof. I can't tell which is worse, your creationist's denial of basic historical facts or that you are likely reinforcing his notion that all scientists have fangs with this schoolyard intellectual bullying."
No one asked Steven to turn up and start spouting his rubbish. He managed that all on his own, although I think he must have someone else turn the PC on for him. And quite honestly when you come across some as stupid as Steven, who clearly has decided that things like evidence do not matter, then there is no point in trying to educate or inform them. You see, there in lies the difference. If I, PZ, or MAJeff, or anyone of a large number of regular commentators was to get something factual wrong and have it pointed out to us by others then we would acknowledge our error. The likes of Steven will just insist even more loudly that black really is white.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 21, 2008 11:03 AM
TTT, you might want to learn a bit of French history... the stereotype doesn't even exist outside the USA...
LOL! Someone was still wrong...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 21, 2008 11:04 AM
Time for a second reconstruction.
I'm sick of still hearing nonsense about the "War of Northern Aggression," about the benign nature of racial slavery, about the goodness of slave owners, etc.
This shit needs to die. And the neo-confederate movement needs to die a quick, painful death as well.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 21, 2008 11:09 AM
Fundie commenters are amusing to read, but I try not to respond to them. Whenever one lie is exposed, another (often contradictory to the first) is made up on the spot. There is no point in conversing with someone without even a passing aquaintance with intellectual honesty.
Posted by: John Marley | February 21, 2008 11:09 AM
It's only fair to defend Steven on one point: He wasn't claiming that the Dutch and Portuguese weren't Christians. Cross-post from the thread under discussion:
What appears to be a mind-crushingly stupid allegation is actually a misunderstanding (for which, of course, he blames the reader) caused by Steven's own abysmal prose.
He was trying to say that the Dutch and Portuguese merely (!) cashed in on the slave trades already practiced by certain Native American and African tribes, none of whom were Christian.
Ignoring, for the moment, the lunacy of the claim, he still fails to explain how that might let the Europeans, who were assuredly Christians, off the hook.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 21, 2008 11:10 AM
I think Susan Jacoby phrased it well when she indicated that in this age of google info-bits, information is getting diluted by popularity and search ranking. To the educated, some of the historic untruths listed in this person's rant are obvious, but if one were to simply take an internet overview of these topics without critical eye to sources, it would be very easy to compile a list of prominent, high traffic site, or high ranking searche results that indicate these ahistorical events as weighty.
With home-schooling, and social reinforcement of sympathetic ahistories becoming widespread, it may be difficult to combat this flow of misinformed ignorance.
Posted by: Jefe | February 21, 2008 11:11 AM
Would it not be more peaceful to hand the neo-confederates a big slice of the South that no one really uses much and say "here, be your own country, but you get no support from the 'yankees'"? Then simply sit back and watch what happens. I don't understand groups that profess such strong disgust for our government and talk of splitting off and "the south will rise again" but continue to live here.
It was 150 years ago. The wrongs have been righted (for the most part)...
Posted by: Laura | February 21, 2008 11:15 AM
My favorite: "The whole issue of slavery came about as a result of the Civil War. It was politics."
What a maroon.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 21, 2008 11:18 AM
"...And quite honestly when you come across some as stupid as Steven, who clearly has decided that things like evidence do not matter, then there is no point in trying to educate or inform them. You see, there in lies the difference. If I, PZ, or MAJeff, or anyone of a large number of regular commentators was to get something factual wrong and have it pointed out to us by others then we would acknowledge our error. The likes of Steven will just insist even more loudly that black really is white."
You seem to be of the school of thought that the purpose of discussion is to find the best answer, even if, in the course of the discussion, you may have to accept correction. I couldn't agree more. I think it's referred to as "arguing charitably." If you find this person to be truly beyond the realm of reason, why continue to jeer at them, to call them stupid? This, at best, seems like an exercise in futility and, at worst, the very type of intellectual elitism that creates Stevens worldwide.
Posted by: Arctic Oak | February 21, 2008 11:19 AM
Which war were they in that they did not lose?
Texas won the war it fought to maintain slavery (aka the Texas Revolution). It was only when they got stuck with the loser eastern states that they started having problems...
Posted by: Dianne | February 21, 2008 11:20 AM
"... the very type of intellectual elitism that creates Stevens worldwide."
!
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 21, 2008 11:25 AM
But wait, if both Protestants and Catholics are not Christian, what denomination is left to claim the title of True Christian™?
From what I hear, Southern Baptist.
Posted by: rlrr | February 21, 2008 11:30 AM
He must have linked to here from somewhere, I dont think he could spell pharyngula.
Posted by: mr_p | February 21, 2008 11:32 AM
How the hell did I miss the enormous comment count on that thread? That is always a dead give-away that a creationist is letting us play whack-a-mole.
Posted by: Schmeer | February 21, 2008 11:33 AM
We didn't create Steven. He was created by a long-standing sense of grievance among certain segments of the Southern population, segments that revere the Confederacy and their "Southern Heritage," and that hold slavery was a benign institution that benefitted blacks, as was Jim Crow. He was created by racists nurturing a sense of being deprived of their rightful place by the disgusting Yankees and "nigger-lovers." He was created by a malignant religious fundamentalism. He was created by a political class actively fomenting those grievances and refusing to provide adequate education or economic opportunities to its populace.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Erm no, ignorance coupled with arrogance, bone-headed stupidity, a repellent polico/religious agenda and a refusal to admit when one's errors are laid bare is what makes Steven the epic idiot we now roundly mock. He needs no additional help from us.
Also spare me the canard about "bad education". that certain has helped produce him, but he is not exactly overly keen to educate himself is he - his entire skreed was merely to attempt to de-educate us!
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 21, 2008 11:35 AM
In this case, someone who appeared simply to be parroting Stein & friends' statements about Darwin being a racist, was after a bit of back-and-forth exposed as a flaming racist and reactionary himself. That may be edifying for others if not for the troll himself.
I thought it was dropping babies on their heads that creates Stevens worldwide.
Posted by: windy | February 21, 2008 11:36 AM
"that you are likely reinforcing his notion that all scientists have fangs with this schoolyard intellectual bullying."
"This, at best, seems like an exercise in futility* and, at worst, the very type of intellectual elitism that creates Stevens worldwide."
Oh for crying... I simply can't wrap my mind around the notion that we should be all cuddly and nice to people as willfully ignorant and obtuse as Steven. Would it really do one lick of good? More likely, it would just give them the notion that their ideas actually carry weight. It's that sort of touchy-feely nonsense that has allowed the current state of affairs where everyone's opinion, no matter how wrong their facts may be and especially if it's backed with some sort of religious conviction, has to be respected, and you get huge swaths of the populace that will never truly contribute to human knowledge as a result.
In other words, YES, we are elitists. Science is elitist. Could we just unequivocally state that and move on?
And if you scroll up in that thread, you can read the discussion that several posters (including the oft-caustic Ichthyic) have with Sonny, one who admits his ignorance and comes to us in good faith, and is given lots of helpful information and links and very little of the infamous attitude. We can be respectful. But you have to earn it.
* Truth be told, I'm a little disappointed that people went along with his slavery shuck 'n' jive right off the bat when it was the mother of all tangential points with regards to Darwin and evolution. But I guess when someone on the internet is Wrong...
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | February 21, 2008 11:41 AM
David, TTT - re: the french "suck at wars" stereotype
That stereotype does exist (albeit in weaker form) in a few other places - Canada, for instance (after all, they did lose control of Canada to the British). It's not really deserved. Like a lot older countries with a history of warfare, they win some and lose some. With all the history I've read, I have noticed a tendancy towards underachievement ie. superior numbers and armament but losing. Not enough to justify a stereotype though.
Posted by: King Aardvark | February 21, 2008 11:47 AM
"If you find this person to be truly beyond the realm of reason, why continue to jeer at them, to call them stupid? This, at best, seems like an exercise in futility and, at worst, the very type of intellectual elitism that creates Stevens worldwide."
Why ? Because sometime ridicule works. Look at Western Europe, all but devoid of creationists. One reason is that is whenever a creationist starts claiming the earth is 6000 years old or some other bullshit people laugh at them. No one with any honesty can hold the views Steven does. Why therefore does he deserve to be treated with anything other than contempt ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Arctic Oak, the best way to deal with idiots is to point out their idiocy--loudly, repeatedly, and often. You're afraid this moron might get his feelings hurt? Good! That's the lesson we want to convey! Talk BS and you will reap the consequences, which include deserved ridicule and scorn. Where's the problem here?
Posted by: H. Humbert | February 21, 2008 11:49 AM
These trolls are starting to depress me. I mean, I've known a few folks whose intellects were not exactly their biggest selling points, but most were merely disinterested in debate and discussion.
Never before have I met so many who trumpet their ignorance so proudly.
I'd like to propose a new tactic for dealing with IDiots.
Basically, it consists of refusing to get drawn in their little solitary circle-jerk and instead pointedly asking them to explain and defend ID without referring to evolution or its percieved flaws. After all, any scientific theory worth its salt should be able to stand on its own feet once competing theories are sufficiently refuted. For instance modern chemistry doesn't rely on discrediting the classical elements, other than referring to them in their historical contexts and why our current understanding supplanted them.
At best, we'll get to watch them twist in the wind as they try to explain ID on its own--ahem--merits. At least, we'll only have to hear the old Darwin-was-a-Racist canard once before we give em' the cold shoulder.
There's nothing disingenuous in this. They wanna play at being scientists? Then let's let them defend their theory to a skeptical audience, the way real scientists do.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | February 21, 2008 11:51 AM
"We didn't create Steven. He was created by a long-standing sense of grievance among certain segments of the Southern population, segments that revere the Confederacy and their "Southern Heritage," and that hold slavery was a benign institution that benefitted blacks, as was Jim Crow. He was created by racists nurturing a sense of being deprived of their rightful place by the disgusting Yankees and "nigger-lovers." He was created by a malignant religious fundamentalism. He was created by a political class actively fomenting those grievances and refusing to provide adequate education or economic opportunities to its populace."
And on top of all that, if we take his word for it he went to university, he has clearly decided that he has nothing to learn from anyone. One can sympathise with people who are disadvantaged because of their upbringing. It is harder to sympathise when they refuse help to overcome that upbringing.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 11:52 AM
"He must have linked to here from somewhere, I dont think he could spell pharyngula."
Depending on how much beer I have had, I do not always find it easy!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 11:55 AM
I discovered long ago that you just have to type the words "Hitler, atheist" into goggle and you get 928,000 sites listed and at least most of the first ones provide considerable evidence that Hitler called himself a Christian. There are all sorts of quotes from Hitler's writings and speeches where he claims to be Christian:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html
In order to make an argument for Hitler's atheism you have to provide evidence that he was a liar. And even if he was, he was obviously followed by those who considered themselves Christian.
Posted by: Norman Doering | February 21, 2008 11:57 AM
(One day, in some better future, everyone will suck at war.)
Good points, Rey, and you've saved me the trouble of bringing up Ichthy's dialogue with Sonny. While I appreciate and share Oak's general preference for civility, the notion that Steven was "created" by the very distain his aggressive ignorance engenders is at best paradoxical. You might as well argue that his smugly arrogant disinformation campaign creates this so-called "elite." When you boil it down, who's wrong, and who's perpetuating the culture war, of which the "ahistorical" thread is a symptom? Us? Or Them?
I hate to break it up into tribal camps like that, but there is a dividint line. They are welcome to cross it. They are invited to cross it. We beg them to cross it. They refuse. And that's our fault? I don't think so.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Classic examples of The argument from "Oh yeah?!?"
Posted by: Toddahhhh | February 21, 2008 11:59 AM
Maybe Steven DID go to university - the University of Hard Knocks on the Head. I hope he finds an education somewhere.
Also, it sure sounded like he conflated R E Lee's words of the White Man's Burden with abolitionism. [eyeroll]
Posted by: True Bob | February 21, 2008 12:07 PM
"And on top of all that, if we take his word for it he went to university, he has clearly decided that he has nothing to learn from anyone. One can sympathise with people who are disadvantaged because of their upbringing. It is harder to sympathise when they refuse help to overcome that upbringing."
Ugh. Going to a university might not even fix his particular problem. I teach at a state university in the not-too-deep South, and I face this neo-Confederate shit all the time. My own department actually awards a 'United Daughters of the Confederacy' scholarship to one of our top undergrads every year. When I tried to get rid of this abomination (by pointing out to my colleagues that the UDC promotes that same pack of lies that the civil war wasn't about slavery, slaves were well-treated, etc.) I was shouted down by my older, southern, male colleagues who accused me of attacking their heritage. Mind you, I'm a historian of science, so these colleagues were historians.
It really beggars all belief. I sometimes find myself wishing that the south had managed to secede after all. Mostly, though, I just dream about moving back north some day.
Posted by: porkchop | February 21, 2008 12:07 PM
I see that Keith Eaton has wandered over here from a Panda's Thumb thread. He said over there that he had to leave us to prepare for some sort of Expelled happening. Must be done with whatever that entailed.
Posted by: hje | February 21, 2008 12:12 PM
I agree with MA Jeff. I should say, I think derisive intellectual elitism helps to create the Stevens of the world.
Have you honestly not watched someone's pricked insecurities about class, education, etc. cause them a basic total meltdown in reason? I say, if give the option to insult someone's intelligence, pass. At least if the best retort you have is, "You're stupid."
The most intelligent people I know are capable of being witty without making someone else feel like something the cat dragged in.
Posted by: Arctic Oak | February 21, 2008 12:15 PM
King Aardvark @ #38
The Canadian thing is about the French Canadian refusal to enlist for WWII - it doesn't refer to the European French. Today, though, some of our best fighting outfits are from Quebec.
I think this thing got started because France didn't want to participate in the invasion of Iraq. They certainly carried their weight in WWI and WWII.
Posted by: Caveat | February 21, 2008 12:19 PM
Thanks for the link, Norm. That's an interesting entry you've penned there.
Posted by: Jit | February 21, 2008 12:21 PM
TTT,
"They're like the France of America."
va te faire foutre, espece de connard...
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 21, 2008 12:21 PM
The idiots are now colonizing my psychic space.
Posted by: danley | February 21, 2008 12:22 PM
I think Steven got the "Lee ran for president" from a Harry Turtledove book. Guns of the South. In that book Lee does become the president of the Confederate States of America and does become an abolitionist. Apparently he didn't realize that the book is fiction. South African time travelers didn't bring AK-47s back to the Confederacy in order to preserve the only country on earth that would agree with Apartheid.
As an historian, and not a scientist, I can respond to the rest:
John Henry Newton
Was a slave trader and a deserter. He was also, from the very beginning a Christian, though a bad one. Even after he became an Evangelical Christian he continued to trade in slaves for another 6 years and actually retired from the sea because of an illness, not because he felt a moral opposition to the 'trade. He didn't support abolition until 1787, forty years after proclaiming himself an Evangelical Christian and giving up profanity, gambling, and alcohol. Apparently drinking and cussing are bad, selling humans is good.
Why did the State of Georgia abolish slavery for the first two decades of its existence
It didn't. Georgia as a colony limited the slave trade for the first fifteen years, mostly because it was envisioned as a penal colony. By 1751 slavery is legal in the colony of Georgia. Otherwise Georgia was one of the last states to abolish the slave trade (1798), one of the first states to secede (because of slavery), and had one of the higher slave/free ratios in the confederacy. Also while the Georgia law banning the slave trade (not abolition) was implemented in 1798, it was largely ignored. By 1800 the slave population had doubled, by 1810 it had nearly doubled again, it had increased by another 50% by 1820, and by 1860 it was 15 times what it was in the 1790s (nearly half a million), just under 45% of the state's total population, second to only Virginia in slaves and slave holders.
So apparently, to make Georgia abolitionist, you have to inhabit it with convicts.
Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights.
You might want to actually read the transcripts from the secession debates. They mention slavery early and often, states rights? Not so much. You could argue that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee secede over state's rights, but you can't argue that for the deep south. You also can't ignore the fact that the "right" they are arguing for was slavery. A perfect example is Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia secession convention.
Lee: Never ran for president of the Confederacy, never campaigned on an abolition ticket, and finally, both he and Jackson claimed "conversion" during the war with Mexico. In other words, he continued to own slaves more than a decade after "becoming a Christian."
Steven, put down the science fiction where Turtledove has the Confederacy winning the war and Lee as a great emancipator president and pick up an actual history book. Otherwise, in addition to your idiocy with scientific matters, you establish yourself as an idiot with history as well.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 21, 2008 12:25 PM
In this particular blog, at least, when a person flaunts his idiocy and is arrogant about doing so, it's an unspoken rule that one is allowed to remove the kid gloves when attempting to correct the aforementioned flaunting of idiocy.
Posted by: Stanton | February 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Elitism?
When someone thinks that the random uninformed thoughts floating through their head are the intellectual equals of years of hard work - that's fucking elitism.
Scientists aren't elitists, the creationists are.
Posted by: Graculus | February 21, 2008 12:26 PM
Artic Oak,
You might have had a point had Steven come into the thread, said some stupid stuff, been corrected on what he said and taken those corrections on board. He chose not to follow that path, indicating he had no intention of learning anything and continued to spout his unsupported rubbish. That amounts to dishonesty.
You also keep going on about elitism. Well I will tell you something, elitism beats mediocrity or ignorance any day. It is clear from that thread Steven knew nothing about the American Civil War. Rather than take a step back from his claims and learn, he chose to continue repeating them. Why does he deserve any respect ? He claims to have been to university, and from what he said it seems he studied some history there. He cannot have learnt anything in any of the classes he took. I did not study American history at school, nor at university, and yet even I seem to know more about the American Civil War than he does.
Had Steven admitted that he perhaps did not know as much as he thought he did then others would have let his original comments go, and pointed him to where he could learn. He instead chose to ignore those people indicating a total lack of respect for history (and science) and total lack of respect for people who know things.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Another note for the French - they showed up for the US Revolutionary War, didn't they? Even without the most altruistic motives, that's pretty damn good from my perspective.
And as for fair treatment of trolls...
I don't recall any posters getting a "you moron" response at first. There's a period of Myers' Army attempting to communicate and educate, which the trollster ignores while continuing to spout the same garbage (or embellish with additional red herrings and lies). Then they are reminded of the things they didn't answer or the lies they wrote. After a few iterations, they get the overdue verbal smackdown.
Gotta love the "[stamping feet]Respect me or I won't respect you" routine.
Posted by: True Bob | February 21, 2008 12:29 PM
A creationist named Steve?
That makes one Steve who is a creationist, as opposed to the many Steve's who are professional biologists and teach evolution.
As for Hitler, I think Steve could learn a lesson from Hitler in how to doubt Darwin.
From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'
And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'
Many creationists say the same , of course, but they are only parroting Hitler.
Posted by: Steven Carr | February 21, 2008 12:30 PM
It may surprise 'Steven' to find out that Darwin was actually a Christian before he formulated his theory. After that he was agnostic, and, while not a Christian, never denied the existence of a God.
Hitler claimed to be Christian, and claimed that that was a valid basis for his anti-Semitism. We can't be sure, but it does seem likely that he had a twisted form of Christian belief. Somewhat like most of the 'all evolutionists/scientists/gays/Muslims will burn in hell' crowd.
Dutch? Portugese? All atheist? Bollocks. The whole of Europe, and parts of America too, were involved in the slave trade, some even using Christianity as an excuse (sounds familiar...)
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Darwin was racist. The only reason I think this terrible misconception could have arisen is because of the bizarre world of social Darwinism, which uses the theory of natural selection (rather incorrectly) to defend laissez-faire economics, imperialism, colonialism and racism. Darwin himself actually said that sympathy should be extended to all races and nations.
'Steven' seems to have a very weird perception of the slave trade. The majority of Christians (along with the majority of atheists at the time) believed that there was nothing wrong with racism, or the slave trade. And, as he put himself, 'a racist is a racist'. That works both ways.
And the Africans would probably have done a lot better if we'd left them alone. They would not have had their culture tarnished and their natural wealth plundered, they would have had better living conditions, and there would certainly be a lot less third-world debt than there is.
Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | February 21, 2008 12:30 PM
Wow, Steven had a total freebie with Thomas Jefferson owning slaves AND being non-Christian. But wait! This is a Christian nation, so our founding fathers were all Christian, so he couldn't possibly have owned slaves.
Posted by: aporeticus | February 21, 2008 12:38 PM
"Wow, Steven had a total freebie with Thomas Jefferson owning slaves AND being non-Christian. But wait! This is a Christian nation, so our founding fathers were all Christian, so he couldn't possibly have owned slaves."
I think he was doing a Gish Gallop, spewing out more crap than the available brooms could handle.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 21, 2008 12:45 PM
Uh, y'know, that wouldn't really be too difficult...
(For the record, I'm not saying he was an atheist.)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 21, 2008 12:46 PM
Steven Carr @ 60: Could you please direct us to a translation of those quotes?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 21, 2008 12:50 PM
I read all of Steven's comments and think I killed more brain cells than that drinking binge last weekend. My favourite comment was the I-read-it-on-a-national-monument-but-can't-find-anything-about-it-on-the-ENTIRE-internet. I have never heard anyone cite a statue. I'd love to see that citation in an essay: "(1) A national monument".
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 21, 2008 12:50 PM
Why point out and ridicule the likes of Steven and the lunacy he espouses? Maybe because it's just good, clean fun. After all, aren't we rationalists otherwise just a boring bunch of academic elites?
Um, not so much, at least not in my case. I attended junior college, but never completed my Associate's degree. I scarcely qualify as an academic elite by any sense of the term. I do consider myself to be educated, though, and I enjoy learning new things on a daily basis. I really enjoy science and philosophy and politics and recreation. I like having fun, and at the risk of being accused of tooting my own horn I can calmly state that my friends and family do not find me boring. Rational and logical to their frustration sometimes, but not boring.
One of the other ways I have fun is reading blogs and posting comments, like here. And when I encounter the Stevens of this world and his detractors, I usually end up getting a good laugh out of it, if at his expense. But, he's the one who set himself up for it, so I say let him have it. And have fun doing it.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | February 21, 2008 12:51 PM
I've been thinking about it. Why not teach "Intelligent Design" (i.e., Creationism 3.0). But lets give them all billing. Starting here: Norse.
Posted by: Moses | February 21, 2008 12:56 PM
#53,
Tout-a-fait d'accord. Apres s'etre fait enculer, que TTT aille chier bien loin.
Posted by: paul lurquin | February 21, 2008 12:56 PM
Re: French Military Failures
Iraq certainly gave it a big boost, but the meme was out there for quite sometime before that. I think it came about as an unfair reaction to French performance in WWII: think Maginot Line, early surrender and the cooperation of some. In particular, I recall that there was an expectation that Vichy French forces in North Africa would switch sides and support the Allies during Operation Torch, but didnt. As that was the first American fighting of the war, I expect it left a poor taste in the mouths of many Americans.
Posted by: Dave | February 21, 2008 12:59 PM
Steven, meet Project Steve:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
Posted by: Tosser | February 21, 2008 1:00 PM
Eeesh! Steven's got some serious problems, methinks.
I can't wait until this fad of anti-intellectualism dies out. It's incomprehensible why someone would so willingly reject reality and legitimate information and facts so as to protect his own fragile ego.
That "I'm using a monument as a source" thing just about killed me with its stupidity too, Feyn.
Posted by: Dan | February 21, 2008 1:01 PM
Errr, no thanks PZ, one can only handle so much of Teh Stupid in one day. Your post kind of outlines that the thread in question might have toxic levels of Teh Stupid and I just ate my lunch.
Posted by: Zorpheous | February 21, 2008 1:04 PM
There have been a few posts on blogs recently addressing historic Christian pronouncements on slavery. Here's one quote from a bishop in the 1800s, but there are many more like it.
Posted by: James McGrath | February 21, 2008 1:07 PM
Don't forget about the fact that another Steve is trolling on the thread of Vertebrate Eye Evolution.
Posted by: Stanton | February 21, 2008 1:14 PM
Don't forget about the fact that another Steve is trolling on the thread of Vertebrate Eye Evolution.
Posted by: Stanton | February 21, 2008 1:14 PM
@55 - Steven's not exactly alone in being unable to tell fiction from nonfiction. Back when I was teaching I ran into many college students, mostly freshmen engineering majors, who didn't know the difference between a novel and an actual history, biography, sociological case study, or other work of nonfiction. I got tired of explaining to students that the reason the plot was so weak in A Social History of the Machine Gun or Designing Engineers is that there wasn't one because the books were not fiction. Some of those kids were incredibly bright, but nonetheless glaringly, appallingly ignorant about just about everything that fell outside their narrow area of interest.
As for the South, since moving to Georgia I've been thinking more and more that back in 1861 Abe should have just said, Fuck it, let the asswipes go.
Posted by: Nan | February 21, 2008 1:16 PM
You can forgive France a lot for giving the world Brie, Roquefort, Champagne, Armangac ....... . Grits somehow do not cut it.
Let's not be dissing grits, there, son. That's comfort food. (Sorry to be late, got caught up in traffic. Did I miss anything?)
Posted by: Hairy Doctor Professor | February 21, 2008 1:24 PM
Feynmaniac #66 wrote:
ROFL!
Although it's more like "(1) A national monument. I think. I'm pretty sure, anyway."
Posted by: Leni | February 21, 2008 1:28 PM
Science is extremely elitist in the sense that we think difficult, complex tasks should be carried out by people who are good at them, and that opinions should be valued according to their concordance with reality. I'm not clear on why this is a problem.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 21, 2008 1:31 PM
I am stunned that the South's culinary contributions are so slighted.
Cajun cuisine
Sweetea (it's not just tea with sugar added)
Cornpone
Anything Peanut
and most importantly
DEEP FRYING!
Posted by: True Bob | February 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Whenever I hear the "Civil War wasn't about slavery" bullshit -- and I grew up in Georgia, so believe me, I heard it a lot (and as a child believed it, God help me) -- I like to point people to the Declaration of Secession of Georgia. (Sort of like the Declaration of Independence, only without all that freedom and equality crap.)
Here's the first two sentences:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. ...
Yep, the very first thing is...slavery! And believe me, if you read it, that's all it talks about.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm
Posted by: Glenn | February 21, 2008 1:33 PM
"Underachievers in the domain of warfare"
I'll wear that title with pride...
Posted by: Arnaud | February 21, 2008 1:35 PM