…and this is a 
Ray has always been good for hours of hilarity — he writes amazingly stupid stuff. But now Ray has competition: Eric Hovind has a blog! It's not quite as insane as Ray's, but it does have more evil and stupidity.
For example, Eric likes a poem that he quotes — it's a crude racist ditty that, I'm told, you can also find on the Stormfront web site. It's written as if by some caricature of an immigrant, and ends like this:
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race.
If they no like us, they can scram,
Got lots of room in Pakistan ..
Hovind has been shown that some of the statistics he used to justify vilifying immigrants were wrong, he's admitted it, but he still likes the poem. That tells you a lot about him, right there.
On the evil side, he has a post called "The Evoluiton Hypothisis" [sic, sic]. He uses a diagram of what he calls the scientific method to argue against evolution's status as a scientific theory.
I don't much care for the diagram — it's too rigid in its simplistic model of how science works, and it perpetuates the misleading idea that hypotheses gradually become theories (usually, theories emerge to explain large bodies of information already accumulated, and don't slowly expand up out of single hypotheses) and that theories become laws if they're confirmed enough. But I'll let it slide… you'll find many similar diagrams in introductory biology texts.
Where Hovind is stupidly wrong is that he looks at that diagram, and baldly claims that the "concept of evolution has never gotten passed the Hypothesis stage". Ridiculous. All those papers being constantly published in the scientific literature are tests of the theory. The primary research literature is crammed full of tests of evolution, and more keep coming. You have to be profoundly ignorant of the state of biology to be able to make such a ludicrous claim. Oh, wait…he's a Hovind. Of course he's deeply ignorant!
Oh, if any of you decide to hang about and laugh at Eric Hovind's goofy claims, would you mind reminding him now and then that I'm waiting for my iPod Touch?
Comments
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 9:51 AM
He got the "law" component really wrong.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 9:55 AM
Can't trust anyone
Who uses a silly verse
To put his point out
Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | June 14, 2009 9:57 AM
Why don't you set up a web gizmo (preferably run by an independent outfit) or something on the left, through which all these clicks can counted before routing? With a counter? That way you'll have "non-biased" numbers to taunt him with.
Posted by: Jared | June 14, 2009 9:59 AM
I always laugh at how the unscientific thing "a hypothesis becomes a theory which becomes a law"--they are all very different; can we at least improve science education in this country to the point that even a 3rd grade student can laugh at these clowns?
Posted by: Josh
|
June 14, 2009 10:05 AM
Arrrggh. I hate the theory into law thing.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 14, 2009 10:06 AM
Hovind is a racist. Why am I not surprised.
Posted by: 2-D Man | June 14, 2009 10:15 AM
We already know that he has no concept of how evolution works, but it's kind of a surprise to find out that he has no concept of how our language works.Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 10:17 AM
My comment on his blog:
I find out that the stats are wrong
But still I gonna sing this song;
My skull so thick, my bone so dense
It will not let in evidence.
If something fits my point of view
It doesn't matter if it's true;
I'll let it in, and keep it in,
Cos telling lies is no great sin.
And if I'm told that it's a lie,
With evidence I can't deny,
I'll keep the lie that fits my views--
Thank God I have the right to choose!
America is great, because
My lie's protected by our laws!
The First Amendment still applies
To ignoranti spreading lies!
Any bets as to whether it gets approved?
Posted by: Dan DeLeon | June 14, 2009 10:25 AM
The background image makes him look like he's ready to sell me a Shamwow.
Posted by: Samphire | June 14, 2009 10:26 AM
A favourite saying of the jailbird and his dim, scientifically-uneducated clone:
"I'll believe in evolution when a dog gives birth to a non-dog".
And I'll believe in gravity when apples fall upwards.
Posted by: Mbee | June 14, 2009 10:31 AM
OK so lets apply this 'scientific method' to god.
Observation - None so far - Fail
Therefore there is no need to consider god in science.
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | June 14, 2009 10:31 AM
I'm curious if Hovind is the product of home schooling. With all the bad grammar, wrong word usage and poor spelling it seems that he did not get much of a basic education. That alone should be enough to marginalize the idiot.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 14, 2009 10:35 AM
Fantastically, if you post a comment on his blog, you have to make sure you capitalise "Jesus" and "God" else your comment gets automatically deleted. What kind of a blog censors in this way? It's absurd. Also you cannot post URLs, which makes it quite hard to point to evidence refuting his rubbish.
On the subject of the iPod touch, I have a gut feeling that this could be of similar sincerity to a certain $250,000 Hovind prize that was never going to be awarded...
Posted by: Jonathan | June 14, 2009 10:39 AM
Oh yes, and presumably the reason he's misspelled the title (given that the rest of the post has good spelling) is an attempt to imply that people supporting the "Evolution Hypothesis" are too stupid to spell it correctly. It's not particularly persuasive.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 10:43 AM
Cuttlefish the Genius @ 8:
Brilliant.
Want as bumpersticker !
We should make that poem into the atheist hymn about creationists.
Posted by: Kel | June 14, 2009 10:43 AM
They've bypassed the "observation" step by going straight to the "explanation" part, thus forever eliminating the need to actually produce evidence for God. it's a perfect system.Posted by: danwest | June 14, 2009 10:52 AM
Strange that the diagram doesn't contain a box for the Creationist most used tool: [Find-in-Bible] ---> [pass]
Posted by: catta
|
June 14, 2009 10:52 AM
Not surprised at all that he doesn't know how to write. His father's, and presumably his, only hope for success was fast-talking bait and switch, without giving listeners time to think about anything said.
Nothing exposes dullness as much as writing does.
Posted by: Steve L | June 14, 2009 11:00 AM
I remember an after-school series of cartoons called 'Schoolhouse Rock', one of which was about how a bill becomes a law. For some reason the diagram reminds me of that cartoon. It may be simply because becoming a law is the final phase in each, but I'm still curious to know whether this idea is as pervasive outside the U.S. or in other languages.
Posted by: LafinJack | June 14, 2009 11:10 AM
Me like hockey!
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 14, 2009 11:11 AM
Steve L, I was thinking the same thing. The short cartoon can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
If goodman Hovind had also misspelled "The", it would have been even more descriptive of the willful ignorance on display - sic, sic, sic.
Heh - "Teh Evolutoin Hypothisis"
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2009 11:11 AM
On the iPod front, you know you don't need people to click it every day, it counts the most unique visitors directed from here. That said, you should still win by a long way.
Posted by: ChrisKG | June 14, 2009 11:14 AM
That insipid poem is on Stormfront but I am not posting a link since they do not need the traffic. Who knew Eric Hovind was a Neo-Nazi? Although I'm not surprised since he probably believes in the story of Ham and Noah.
Posted by: ollie | June 14, 2009 11:16 AM
This racist poem originated in New Zealand many years ago and was modified for the United States.
Posted by: catta
|
June 14, 2009 11:19 AM
Steve, I have no idea how you make the connection to schoolhouse rock, sorry. I'm not American, but I don't think that that's the reason: I know the Schoolhouse Rock song. It's been parodied by the Simpsons and the Daily Show, too - but the diagram didn't make me think of either. It's just a flowchart, and it reminded me of this:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg
In fact, I'm a little surprised that he posted his flowchart - the one in my link has been around for ages in a myriad variations, and I'm almost sure someone will bring it up in his comments.
Posted by: ethin | June 14, 2009 11:23 AM
Leave your comment
Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s, incivility, or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted.
I'm guessing he also probably has to approve comments for them to even show up, since there's still 0 comments on the Pharyngula-linked entry.
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | June 14, 2009 11:25 AM
PZ
I might have told you this when you were in Orlando, but I saw Eric Hovind at a local church doing his anti-evolution schtick. He told the kids there that he had proof that a Brontosaurus lived in Peru less than 1,000 years ago. He held up a drawing of a Brontosaurus, outlined, and then held up a drawing with the same outline and told the kids it was a cave drawing from Peru from about 1,000 years ago. The drawing, upon closer observation, was of a llama.
I don't understand the complete lack of integrity shown by his ilk and that of the Discovery Institute. Is there something in the Bible that says, "Go lie your asses off if it will deceive someone into coming to Jebus?"
Ugh.
JHJ
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 14, 2009 11:29 AM
It's heartening to see that the two comments allowed on the welfare "poem" post slam both Hovind's form of Christianity and lack of facts.
Posted by: Anri | June 14, 2009 11:32 AM
What I find interesting about the diagram is how tiny and insignifigant the 'pass many' step is, visually speaking.
Thinking for a moment about even my very limited understanding of the masssively rigorus going-over any truly new idea has to withstand in science...
That little blurb should read something like 'Survive multiple, well-funded, well-executed scientific studies specifically tailored to disprove aspects of the concept.'
Then again, that's a lot of words, and Hovind's spelling is - somehow- even worse than mine, so maybe not.
He also forgot the 'modify concept to fit new/better/more accurate data' step.
Posted by: ethin | June 14, 2009 11:36 AM
Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.
Oh, indeed. Well I've left a polite, informative comment regarding his misconceptions about biology but I doubt it will be approved.
Posted by: Dianne | June 14, 2009 11:37 AM
Cuss words (mild or abbrev.), blasphemy, URL’s, incivility, or failure to give the name ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ capitals, will be deleted.
I wonder if comments invoking the Great God Zeus or Allfather Odin would be approved.
Posted by: flea | June 14, 2009 11:38 AM
I love the double "sic", although it shoudl have been "sick, sick"
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | June 14, 2009 11:40 AM
And, of course, if a "law" fails to be upheld in an experiment, that doesn't mean the whole thing is worthless. Cases in point: Newton's laws of motion.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 11:40 AM
I was at least one of the folks who E-mailed PZ about the racist post at Hovind's new place.
For what it's worth, I found his blog by clicking through his blogger profile after he left this gem of a comment at Ray Comfort's place.
Well put Ray. Then we can consider that there is more proof and more written about Jesus Christ than for Plato or the Roman Empire! Wow, talk about giving us the evidence. God has made it abundantly clear hasn't He.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 11:43 AM
I was at least one of the folks who E-mailed PZ about the racist post at Hovind's new place.
For what it's worth, I found his blog by clicking through his blogger profile after he left this gem of a comment at Ray Comfort's place.
Well put Ray. Then we can consider that there is more proof and more written about Jesus Christ than for Plato or the Roman Empire! Wow, talk about giving us the evidence. God has made it abundantly clear hasn't He.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 14, 2009 11:44 AM
Clearly Hovind fils has not visited Europe. Much as I would like to see him educated, I am not sure it would be fair on Italy to send him on a tour of Rome and Pompeii.
Posted by: Dania
|
June 14, 2009 11:45 AM
You'll find the "theory into law" thing in introductory biology texts? Do they teach that at school in the USA? I hope not because that's simply wrong. Although that would explain a lot...
Posted by: flea | June 14, 2009 11:48 AM
The story behind this poem is quite revealing:
From: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/refugees.asp
"...The ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy is one such issue, and the above-quoted e-mail forward about refugees settled in the U.S. receiving financial assistance from the federal government that amounts to almost double the stipends provided to American pensioners is one such case in point. The piece is more than three years old, it was written about Canada and not the U.S. (someone has merely substituted the word 'American' for 'Canadian' throughout the text), and it wasn't even true about Canada."
It looks like the Hovind genes can swallow, and regurgitate, anything.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 12:00 PM
I think my favorite part of the poem is that immigrant caricatures make enough money from welfare to live so that all they have to worry about is popping out more brown skinned babies while simultaneously living fourteen families to a house with a tent in the backyard.
Posted by: PP | June 14, 2009 12:07 PM
I love this gem:
"Ida was supposedly only 9 months old when she died, so she would not have had time in her short life to have any children! And this is a missing link? It didn't even pass on offspring! It can't be a "link"."
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
June 14, 2009 12:08 PM
PZ you are far too kind to fools like Hovind
Posted by: Carlie | June 14, 2009 12:11 PM
If goodman Hovind had also misspelled "The", it would have been even more descriptive of the willful ignorance on display - sic, sic, sic.
Hovind is not aware of all internet traditions.
Posted by: Don | June 14, 2009 12:11 PM
It's no suprise that crude racism is part of the mix, but I didn't think Hovind would be so open about it.
Cuttlefish,
You just keep getting better. That last one was positively Burnsian, reminded me of 'The Kirk's Alarm'
Calvin's sons! Calvin's sons!
Seize your sp'ritual guns,
Ammunition you never can need:
Your hearts are the stuff
Will be powther enough,
And your skulls are store-houses o' lead -
Calvin's sons!
Your skulls are store-houses o' lead.
Posted by: blf | June 14, 2009 12:14 PM
Well put Ray. Then we can consider that there is more proof and more written about Jesus Christ than for Plato or the Roman Empire! Wow, talk about giving us the evidence. God has made it abundantly clear hasn't He.
I suspect the both of them may actually think the above tripe is true. It would not surprise me if more has been written about the magic fairies in the sky than about the Romans or Plato. (Albeit a fair amount of what has been written about their favourite magic fairy dust child would presumably also mention the Romans.) Since both of 'em (presumably) consider the babble to be evidence for the sky fairies, the quantity of written stuff would seem significant. To them.
And it gives 'em an excuse to ignore the total lack of physical artifacts or other contemptuous evidence for their mythology.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 14, 2009 12:18 PM
Gah! Which ones?
I mean, OK, "similar" diagrams, but please assure me that no intro-bio text has "theories" becoming "Laws." Because that would piss me off in a sixth-grade science text.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 12:22 PM
It would not surprise me if more has been written about the magic fairies in the sky than about the Romans or Plato.
One of the commentors in the Ray Comfort thread, Steven J put it this way:
As for there being "more written about Jesus Christ" than about Plato or the Roman Empire, that may be true. There's probably more written about Batman than there is about Millard Fillmore, but I don't think that tells us much about the relative historical facticity of the two men.
Posted by: DonExodus2 | June 14, 2009 12:24 PM
LOL Scroll down to him talking about Ida:
"Ida was supposedly only 9 months old when she died, so she would not have had time in her short life to have any children! And this is a missing link? It didn't even pass on offspring! It can't be a "link".
Fuck my life.
Posted by: DonExodus2 | June 14, 2009 12:26 PM
LOL Scroll down to him talking about Ida:
"Ida was supposedly only 9 months old when she died, so she would not have had time in her short life to have any children! And this is a missing link? It didn't even pass on offspring! It can't be a "link".
Fuck my life.
Posted by: Joe
|
June 14, 2009 12:29 PM
I find it sad and almost surprising that Hovind Jr. is still trotting out the "six types of evolution" bullshit. I really wonder if he realizes that the only people who actually use that retarded definition are his stupid family and his ignorant sheep.
On that note, why are the xtians happy to call themselves a "flock"? And continue to use the whole sheep/Shepard metaphor? Why would someone want to be classified as blind followers?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 14, 2009 12:34 PM
More comedy gold:
and, as for the Sham-Wow shilling:
see what he did there?
But, then, a sudden shift in tone:
About which one is tempted (even after sorting out the 'her's) to ask WTF?
But, see, here's the connection:
It's subtle, that touch, but I think he successfully discerns between the fine line this time.
PayPal accepted.
Posted by: John M | June 14, 2009 12:35 PM
#7 2-D man
"he has no concept of how our language works"
A lot of English-speakers get rather confused about how your language works, too.
Posted by: Divalent | June 14, 2009 12:36 PM
You know, sometimes it makes sense for a technical field to change it's terms in response to the non-technical definitions (or implications) that those terms have in the mind of the general public, particularly when such misunderstandings are well ingrained and resistant to educational efforts. (for example, the adoption of the acronym MRI to replace the "scary" NMR in medical imaging).
This "theory/law" distinction battle has been raging for decades, and despite the best efforts by the biologists, it remains one of the strongest rhetorical arguments in the creationist's arsenal.
Thus, why not replace the term "Theory of evolution by natural selection" with the term "Law of evolution by natural selection"?
The advantage, besides helping those that don't understand evolution see it in terms of meta-labels that they do understand (as they commonly use the term), is that it will shift the burden onto the creationists to argue the nuances of the definition of law and theory.
Seems simple enough for me.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 14, 2009 12:38 PM
Wow, check out this list o' crazy:
who knew?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | June 14, 2009 12:40 PM
"On the eviler side," you should have said.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 14, 2009 12:44 PM
must...break...self...away...from the overflowing well of stoopid...[the humanzee video...my oh my]
Posted by: Aaron Baker | June 14, 2009 12:46 PM
And why is his cluelessness about scientific method "evil" in comparison to his anti-immigrant nastiness? Don't you think the latter is more vicious?
Posted by: Don | June 14, 2009 12:47 PM
Speaking of the iPod: when you win it you should fill it with Pat Condell videos, then eBay it with the proceeds being donated to some organization that mounts legal fights against ceationist/ID incursions into public schools.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 14, 2009 12:48 PM
I was tempted to comment, politely, on the errors in the diagram. But I see that a) many people here have already done so; and b) there are no comments listed as yet.
I suspect Hovind is going to use moderatorial privilege to protect himself from both information and criticism.
Posted by: Don | June 14, 2009 12:50 PM
Speaking of the iPod: when you win it you should fill it with Pat Condell videos, then eBay it with the proceeds being donated to some organization that mounts legal fights against ceationist/ID incursions into public schools.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | June 14, 2009 12:52 PM
I think I've mentioned this here before, but I'm always amused that creationists believe:
1. That there's a powerful Darwinist Conspiracy that "expels" any dissenting scientists and covers up that evolution is a "theory in crisis"
and
2. That scientists decide which theories have sufficient proof to be "promoted" to LAW status, but somehow the Darwinist Conspiracy isn't powerful enough to pull that off, or to "expel" those brave dissidents who must be voting against it!
Of course, logic was never their strong suit, was it?
Posted by: Steve L | June 14, 2009 12:52 PM
Catta (25) -- I doubt that Schoolhouse Rock is responsible for the flow chart. Rather, I wonder if the Americentric culture and education system that results in people knowing rather a lot about the U.S. but very little about other things (e.g. Governor of Alaska not knowing South Africa is a country) could also result in an extrapolation of memorized conceptual structures (U.S. institutional heirarchies, etc) to inappropriate settings. Is it the 'common sense', then, that science should proceed like (known) legislature? It's a question. Don't be sorry if you think there's little to it.
Posted by: Invigilator
|
June 14, 2009 12:54 PM
This is prime stupid too: '4. If this was the "proof" of evolutionism, then we have been lied to for a long time through scientists' claims that evolutionism has already been proven!'
I have a new piece of evidence that Jesus existed (say the Yeshua bar Yehosef ossuary), therefore he clearly didn't exist, because millions of people are certain that he did!
Posted by: Don | June 14, 2009 12:55 PM
Speaking of the iPod: when you win it you should fill it with Pat Condell videos, then eBay it with the proceeds being donated to some organization that mounts legal fights against ceationist/ID incursions into public schools.
Posted by: John M | June 14, 2009 12:57 PM
Comment #51 had a 'smiley' attached when I posted it - honestly !
Posted by: Stewart | June 14, 2009 1:01 PM
Man, maybe there is a god... Eric Hovind's wife is hot...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l6XerHpX0ds/SPv6Qpy6BtI/AAAAAAAAAJM/I_nqj58jnrw/S220-h/PICT0311.JPG
Posted by: MickyW | June 14, 2009 1:05 PM
Doesn't anyone in the Hovind family know when to shut-up?
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 14, 2009 1:07 PM
"On that note, why are the xtians happy to call themselves a "flock"? And continue to use the whole sheep/Shepard metaphor? Why would someone want to be classified as blind followers?"
Breaking down the individual ego is an important step in the process of gaining new members to a cult.
Posted by: Cruithne | June 14, 2009 1:07 PM
Funny how it's those who argue till they're blue in the face that we're the special creation of a higher power that find it so easy to reduce other human beings to the level of beasts in offensive trash like that poem.
If that's what his god is about, I think I'll stick with atheist humanism.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 1:10 PM
No matter how hard Eric tries,
It's all mistakes. Well, some are lies.
Misrepresenting for his cause,
Young Hovind puts the "F" in "laws".
Posted by: John Marley
|
June 14, 2009 1:11 PM
Sorry PZ,
I really hope you get that iPod Touch, but you couldn't pay me enough to go to that site.
Posted by: Kobra | June 14, 2009 1:16 PM
Theories do not become laws. Even the "Law" of Conservation of Matter and Energy is violated in very short time periods thanks to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Hovind is completely full of shit.
Posted by: eigenvector | June 14, 2009 1:56 PM
While being near retirement I'm still an open-minded reader of any blog; willing to give an author a chance to speak. But after 60 seconds of Mr. Hovind's opinions the only word that came to mind as I clicked the white "X" in the red box was: "Ick!"
Posted by: Tully
|
June 14, 2009 2:02 PM
Cuttlefish, you are simply a genius.
I can't stand stupidity so soon after waking up, so I'll put off looking at Hovind's blog for another few hours. It's too bad that he's screening comments...
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 14, 2009 2:04 PM
Eric Hovind has no authority to speak about science.
Seriously, his education is frightfully limited and lacking. According to Linkedin,
Wow! Graduated after one whole year of creation science at a Bible College!
Color me impressed!
He obviously has never had any formal education in evolution, biology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, or the scientific method in general. So he is just as big a fraud (or worse) as his felon-fellating father.
Posted by: Pareidolius | June 14, 2009 2:08 PM
Because of his commenting restricions, I had to avoid the words god and jesus, because he won't post if you don't capitalize them in respect . . . what a maroon. (sic)(k)
I did manage to send the following . . .
I didn't have the heart to tell him about the magazine cover I made featuring his felonious father in a banana suit.
http://hellsnewsstand.blogspot.com/2009/03/unscientific-american.html
Posted by: anti-supernaturalist | June 14, 2009 2:11 PM
** "Reason is the Devil's whore" -- Luther
No fundie (bible worshiper, inherent truth fanatic) will care. Any “fool for Christ” will cite Paul’s first letter to the underground xian cell in Corinth, Greece (50-60 CE):
27 God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are. . .1Cor1:27-28 NIV
Paul and his fellow revenge seekers created a god out of their nihilistic values. He and the primitive church had a perverse self-understanding characterized by an inverted snobbery. Not much has changed 2,000 years later.
Xianity cannot be refuted, it can only be replaced. The de-deification of "nature" (including all the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
Posted by: Drosera
|
June 14, 2009 2:11 PM
Hovind is shameless enough to throw in some defamating statistics after that racist 'poem' and then to write:
Of course, the statistics are still there.
Hovind demonstrates once again what can happen if you derive your morality from the Bible.
Posted by: anti-supernaturalist | June 14, 2009 2:13 PM
** "Reason is the Devil's whore" -- Luther
No fundie (bible worshiper, inherent truth fanatic) will care. Any “fool for Christ” will cite Paul’s first letter to the underground xian cell in Corinth, Greece (50-60 CE):
27 God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are. . .1Cor1:27-28 NIV
Paul and his fellow revenge seekers created a god out of their nihilistic values. He and the primitive church had a perverse self-understanding characterized by an inverted snobbery. Not much has changed 2,000 years later.
Xianity cannot be refuted, it can only be replaced. The de-deification of "nature" (including all the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 2:24 PM
I lived in Jackon for almost 10 years and i don't think I ever heard of the Jackson Hole Bible College.
I will say though that I can't blame him for going there. That's a hell of a place to live, during indoctrination of stupidity or not.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2009 2:25 PM
I like his cheesy used cars salesperson personality.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 2:45 PM
Damn, his twitter feed is even more obnoxious, narcissistic and useless than mine.
Posted by: blf | June 14, 2009 2:51 PM
Not possible.
Posted by: astrounit | June 14, 2009 2:56 PM
"...you'll find many similar diagrams in introductory biology texts."
Would those be published in Texas by any chance? (With the recent news of the apparent demise of the dentist, I've been wondering about the reaction of that multi-billion-buck industry in that state that publishes much of the country's school textbooks...).
The Great Big Golden Book of Science series (coloring book versions available) might have something like that "diagram" in them. That would be "introductory", I reckon.
I don't remember any of those...must have missed 'em. It would have been fun to color charts of that sort with my Crayolas.
"Hypothesis>Theory" then "Theory>Law", without any feedback other than the words "Pass" or "Fail"? (Against what?). No further input is explicitly offered by this constipated diagram at all from OBSERVATION guiding the hypothesis or theory after "Invent Hypothesis to Explain Observation"??? It all gets stalled at "Invent Hypothesis to Explain Observation", with "Pass" and "Fail" offered in ambiguous little boxes off to the sides as if it was all simply a matter of judgement...
That's the "Scientific Method"???
FAIL. FAIL. FAIL.
I would have very heavily employed the black. Then begged my parents for another set of crayons. The bigger set with 100, just in case...
To be fair, let's do a comparison. Let's look at the following chart to see the "Religion Method" (following Hovind, et al):
Read a musty old book
>PASS> (no Fail acknowledged)
No need to invent any hypotheses or even admit to any particular interpretation - it is already Written and it's all there in the book, however one interprets it
>PASS> (no Fail admitted)
Never mind any testing of hypotheses as to whether they conform to natural reality; the book admits of no uncertainty or error whatsoever; the need of tentative hypotheses or theories are therefore not required: it's all already there in the book which already makes it so
>PASS> (no Fail recognized)
Voila, it's Fact and Law.
Just like that, lickety-split.
It's EASY. ANYONE can play. Nobody can fail.
All you need is "faith" that the Book is true, and it is so! (Don't worry about pesky "technical details", many of which may resemble grievously major inconsistencies and contradictions of logic or fact - experts like Mr. Hovind have already figured all those out and inform us all that everything is hunkey dorey and God is True to His Word).
As he and his colleagues will readily attest, the pathetic Scientific Method can't come close to this simple, irrefutably straightforward means of acquiring the Truth.
After all, it is SO OBVIOUS that even an IDIOT could understand it. (Which must be why atheists or scientists can't get it through their thick skulls).
If anybody doubts this, the PROOF is in the literally millions of acres of forests' worth of wood pulp converted into zillions of pages in countless introductory coloring books available that all clearly explains EVERYTHING contained in the advanced, technically-advanced grown-up version. (Which have swept up even more millions of acres of forests: and that kind of production can't POSSIBLY be sustained if there wasn't any truth to it, doncha know).
Anyone can learn from these sacred truth-in-coloring-books. Be sure to have your crayons handy.
And now I must swish a mouthful of Listerine for the next hour.
Posted by: N.Wells | June 14, 2009 2:57 PM
Cuttlefish, congratulations, and thanks, as always. The line about Hovind putting the F in 'laws' was brilliant.
Hovind's poem reminded me of a better one:
We are the precious chosen few,
Let all the rest be damned
There's only room for one or two
We can't have Heaven crammed.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
June 14, 2009 3:18 PM
@80: I like his cheesy used cars salesperson personality.
I think he's kind of cute, and not bad to listen to. If you don't try to parse it.
Posted by: PhilJMoon
|
June 14, 2009 3:30 PM
My comment to his post.
You like the poem? How very...white...of you.
Posted by: Chakolate | June 14, 2009 3:31 PM
You didn't read the fine print for the iPod - he says he'll give it to the referrer who refers the most unique visitors during the first four of his little dramas. The fourth one is still playing, so you haven't won yet.
The way I see it, you're in a win-win situation. If he makes a new charade, you get an iPod. If he doesn't, well, that means we *all* win. ;-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 3:42 PM
So you've obviously read mine then.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 3:50 PM
Looks like he took down the post with the poem--
Could it possibly be he feels shame?
I suppose the removal of insults must mean
No apology needed for same.
Posted by: blf | June 14, 2009 3:56 PM
Gah! No! I try to preserve my sanity… (opinions as to my success are both varied and wrong).
Posted by: PhilJMoon
|
June 14, 2009 3:56 PM
My comment to his post.
You like the poem? How very...white...of you.
Posted by: astrounit | June 14, 2009 3:56 PM
Cuttlefish, THAT one PERFECTLY evokes the image of that lout that PZ places next to every quote by a...well, a lout.
"My skull so thick, my bone so dense
It will not let in evidence."
HILARIOUS!!!
The Listerine came out through my nose.
(With a flash of G&S's reference to the equally clueless he who "is the very model of the modern major general" - man, you trip along as music!)
Bravo! Encore!
Posted by: rev bigdumbchimp | June 14, 2009 4:01 PM
So your just speaking out assumption?
Either way you're probably correct.
Posted by: Sam C | June 14, 2009 4:02 PM
Sven @#50 reports the Hovind blog:
Oh noes! Eric has a sister called Heidi?My poor attempt in the "words for turds" competition:
Lying Ken went to gaol
But the Ministry of Morons couldn't fail
As cretin Eric hoved into sight
He flung around his racist shite
Posted by: Sam C | June 14, 2009 4:05 PM
Sven @#50 reports the Hovind blog:
Oh noes! Eric has a sister called Heidi?My poor attempt in the "words for turds" competition:
Lying Ken went to gaol
But the Ministry of Morons couldn't fail
As cretin Eric hoved into sight
He flung around his racist shite
Posted by: blf | June 14, 2009 4:19 PM
Of course. When did facts or, worse, evidence, ever matter here? ;-)
Of course. When was eithre one of uz ever rong? Er, no, sorry, I mean: When were you ever right? ;-)
Posted by: rev bigdumbchimp | June 14, 2009 4:25 PM
Mrs. Bigdumbchimp, is that you?
Posted by: blf | June 14, 2009 4:40 PM
Only in your
dreamsworse nightmares. You know, the ones where you're being chased by a giant purple bunny rabbit with tentacles, and this mysterious stranger keeps point out where you're hiding. The stranger is either me, or on one of your luckier days, Mrs BDC.Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 4:48 PM
Here's the google cache of the vanished post if anyone is interested.
Posted by: Corey S
|
June 14, 2009 4:48 PM
Now, I can tell him about how the proofs that the earth is young is incorrect.
Posted by: trj | June 14, 2009 4:50 PM
The little racist poem is no longer to be found on his blog. It appears Eric doesn't have the courage to stand up for his beliefs or the honesty to not conceal his mistakes. What an unexpected twist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 4:51 PM
Usually the bunny is salmon colored, but close.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 4:59 PM
He fixed the spelling on "The Evoluiton Hypothisis" too
Posted by: svetogorsk | June 14, 2009 4:59 PM
(With a flash of G&S's reference to the equally clueless he who "is the very model of the modern major general" - man, you trip along as music!)
I am the very model of a cretinous creationist,
My videos and blogs spread lies because I fear the atheist
My favorite kind of poetry has lines which might be racialist
My views on women tend towards the crude and boorish chauvinist
Some people think I write this stuff to be a controversialist
But actually I think it's true, because I'm a god fetishist.
My daddy taught me what I knew before a little interlude,
Which saw him put in jail for acts of gross ethical turpitude,
Which might suggest he's not a man of wholly moral rectitude
Or so his enemies would gloat with Schadenfreudish attitude
But I'm around to spread his word, ensuring that he'll not be missed.
For I'm the very model of a cretinous creationist.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 14, 2009 5:30 PM
He fixed the spelling on "The Evoluiton Hypothisis" too
On the post itself, but not the URL - which presumably he can't change without deleting and republishing.
Posted by: Svetogorsk | June 14, 2009 5:45 PM
I thought Hovind's favourite poem looked a little familiar - it turns out it's already triggered the suspension of a British Conservative Party candidate after she circulated it in an email with an approving comment attached.
Posted by: Rod | June 14, 2009 5:52 PM
Help me out here... I'm Canadian, and I don't understand the concept of a "Bible College". What exactly would such an institution prepare you for?
Surely college is a place you go to learn new things, expand your mind, test and challenge your beliefs and modify them as you mature and find out more....
Please explain....
Posted by: kermit | June 14, 2009 5:59 PM
For those who wondered, the hypothesis -> theory -> law progression was taught in US public schools when I was a kid. Granted that was half a century ago, but I can't say that science education has improved since then on the average. And that's when the US public approved of science education - even my Fundie family. The Russians had just put Sputnik up in orbit, and were getting ready to drop rocks or missiles on our heads. We geared up enthusiasm for science and for a decade or so it was actually pretty good. Creationism was a private matter for some churches to grumble about, but was not a big issue in the schools. Couldn't let those godless atheists get ahead of us in the space race.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 14, 2009 6:20 PM
Because it would be plain wrong. For starters, a law is something much smaller than a theory.
"Magnetic Resonance Imaging" isn't wrong.
First of all, they'd immediately ask rhetorical questions why the evillusionists have now promoted it from theory to law.
Then, they'd say "It's not a law, it's ZOMGZ only a theory!!!eleventyone!"
It would in fact make "law" look like "better than theory".#
And finally, a scientist would rather use another scientist's toothbrush than his nomenclature. [Not original; I can look up the author if you want.] Herding cats? It would be like herding bears to get all biologists to agree on calling it a law – especially when, so obviously, it's something much bigger.
Posted by: KarateMonkey | June 14, 2009 6:21 PM
He's got an "apology" up now of the I'm sorry if you were offended variety. Of course he uses the opportunity to explain his view that evolutionism is the actual source of racism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 14, 2009 6:23 PM
Lying for a living.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 14, 2009 6:26 PM
I've been informed that the term "university" isn't protected in the USA. You write "University" on your garage, it is a university.
Heaven.
No. It's a place you go to get a title, so you become more important and more credible.
Posted by: Vinifera7
|
June 14, 2009 6:40 PM
This man cannot even use a spellchecker, although it seems that he's corrected that problem since the publication of your blog post. It comes as no surprise that he spouts ignorant garbage everywhere.
Allow me to retort with a simplified diagram of how Creationism works:
Have preconceived notion --> Find evidence that supports it while ignoring all evidence that falsifies it --> Keep supporting said preconceived notion forever
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 14, 2009 7:18 PM
Being a Christian Evangelist means never having to say you're sorry.
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | June 14, 2009 7:35 PM
@David Marjanović, OM @#109 in reference to Divalent @#52
Halfway into my handle of Captain Morgan, I think Divalent is right. I am also familiar with David's reputation for excellence and so I accept that I am probably wrong already.
Is there any other term that could replace theory instead of law? That way David's concerns are addressed but we still get the tactical advantage of changing the word to be something other than the common definition.
This change would still be presented to the public as a clarification and I think it would drive the nutjobs... absolutely...bonkers. Maybe "principle?". IDFK.
Posted by: Darren S. A. George | June 14, 2009 7:41 PM
Rod:
There are a number of Bible Colleges in Canada- I can think of two in Alberta. Basically, they teach you their version of theology- how to be a good Xtian, how to ignore or contradict the arguments of atheists or those of other religions, etc. Some of them are okay, some of them teach creationism.
Posted by: Ken | June 14, 2009 8:01 PM
Interesting
Eric Hovind's website appears to be filtering out any comments that make mention of the Ipod he owes to PZ.
Yet another reason why Eric will be receiving full treatment as a False Prophet in the afterlife in the extremely unlikely case that his cult is somehow the cult with the Real answers.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 8:08 PM
LafinJack @ 20:
oh good, I'm not the only one who instantly thought of that...
Posted by: Felix | June 14, 2009 8:24 PM
There are ways to circumvent censorship in comment or discussion sections on blog sites. One way that I have used and that I found worthwhile is, instead of repeatedly posting stuff and hoping they'll overlook it once, contact other commenters if they have addresses linked with their name, and tell them personally and in a friendly 'I think you'll appreciate this information on what's really going on with the people running this site' tone.
I did this with a person's page who was systematically plagiarizing and getting positive feedback on 'his work', and his subscriber list dropped dramatically after a few days of grapevining.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 8:54 PM
Following KarateMonkey's notice, I checked out Hovind's non-apology apology. It's a beautiful thing:
He's not sorry for saying something racist. He's just sorry that you then decided he was a racist. This is your fault, not his. In fact, you probably should apologize to him for making a big deal of it:
See, you're the real racist. You're the one who read "too darn good for the white man race" and decided it was racist. If you didn't have such a racist mind, you would take that poem as a simple dislike for lazy brown people.
Racism didn't exist before 1859, when Charles Darwin invented it. Christians have never been racist.
And it's impossible that Eric Hovind might be a hypocrite. All people are originally of one nation and one blood. But that was like 6000 years ago, and the world is going to have to remain a little imperfect until Jesus Christ returns in glory. These days, America is the property of the white man race. Hovind totally doesn't mind brown people as long as they stay where they belong.
Posted by: Deconverted | June 14, 2009 9:02 PM
He says this when defining "kind"...
"To give you one example I would say that the Dog, Wolf, and Coyote are the same "kind" of animal."
Therefore he accepts evolution but doesn't realize it. Aren't apes just as closely related as dogs, wolfs and coyotes? If so he must accept that he we evolved from an ape-like species.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 14, 2009 9:21 PM
The URL of his blog's background image:
drdino.com/img/Twit-Background.jpg
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 10:17 PM
In case he bins it--
The man made me so angry--
My comment, in prose:
Well, you did say you liked the poem.
Why?
Artistically, it lacks any merit whatsoever. Its meter is inconsistent, its rhymes forced, and it has all the subtlety of message we expect from blunt-object trauma. No fan of the English language would like the poem for any mechanistic reasons.
What is left?
A hateful, bigoted message.
The attempt at verse was the lipstick on a pig, the smile on a villain, the thin veneer of civility of a suit on a mobster. It was an attempt to deflect the shameful message, and to excuse it as rhyme.
Well, it wasn't poetry. It wasn't even good verse. It certainly does not qualify as art. And yet, you liked it.
Again... why?
Posted by: Caymen Paolo | June 14, 2009 10:35 PM
Farther down the page in another idiot-rant he cites an article that claims that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed from erosion (http://www.rae.org/bits15.htm). Musta been the flood, huh? The article dates back to 1999. I'm sure that someone has written a rebuttal that takes it apart (just like that great article debunking creationist objections to radioactive dating). Anyone know of one?
Posted by: Caymen Paolo | June 14, 2009 10:37 PM
Farther down the page in another idiot-rant he cites an article that claims that the Grand Canyon could not have been formed from erosion (http://www.rae.org/bits15.htm). Musta been the flood, huh? The article dates back to 1999. I'm sure that someone has written a rebuttal that takes it apart (just like that great article debunking creationist objections to radioactive dating). Anyone know of one?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 10:39 PM
It seems you were binned Cuttlefish,
...but very nicely put and right over his smiling head.
And if I may...
That attempt at verse was the whitewash on a sepulchre.
Posted by: Steve Dutch | June 14, 2009 10:55 PM
The problem I have with the diagram is that nobody has attacked the historically fallacious and intellectually dishonest notion that a hypothesis evolves into a theory. A theory is any systematic body of thought on a subject. Histories of science routinely talk about the "Ptolemaic theory" or the "phlogiston theory," both of which are discredited, but they are still theories. "Music theory" and "number theory" are bodies of thought that have nothing at all to do with empirical verification. It appears the idea that hypotheses evolve into theories came about as a means of countering the creationist misuse of the term "theory." You don't counter intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty by sloppy intellectual dishonesty of your own.
Note that the UW college professor who was honored for his teaching was a forestry professor. In that capacity he might have been an excellent teacher who never had to deal with evolution at all. But his specialty illustrates a connection I have long noticed. Whenever someone with scientific credentials espouses crank science, the odds are overwhelming that he's an engineer, industrial, or applied scientist. I suspect that people in "applied" fields have poor theoretical backgrounds and overestimate the value of their "practical" experience. Drilling a million oil wells will not expose someone to the geologic evidence for an ancient earth. Watching a million pine seedlings germinate will never confront someone with the evidence for the evolution of trees. Flamers line up to the right.
Posted by: Steve Dutch | June 14, 2009 10:57 PM
The problem I have with the diagram is that nobody has attacked the historically fallacious and intellectually dishonest notion that a hypothesis evolves into a theory. A theory is any systematic body of thought on a subject. Histories of science routinely talk about the "Ptolemaic theory" or the "phlogiston theory," both of which are discredited, but they are still theories. "Music theory" and "number theory" are bodies of thought that have nothing at all to do with empirical verification. It appears the idea that hypotheses evolve into theories came about as a means of countering the creationist misuse of the term "theory." You don't counter intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty by sloppy intellectual dishonesty of your own.
Note that the UW college professor who was honored for his teaching was a forestry professor. In that capacity he might have been an excellent teacher who never had to deal with evolution at all. But his specialty illustrates a connection I have long noticed. Whenever someone with scientific credentials espouses crank science, the odds are overwhelming that he's an engineer, industrial, or applied scientist. I suspect that people in "applied" fields have poor theoretical backgrounds and overestimate the value of their "practical" experience. Drilling a million oil wells will not expose someone to the geologic evidence for an ancient earth. Watching a million pine seedlings germinate will never confront someone with the evidence for the evolution of trees. Flamers line up to the right.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 14, 2009 11:08 PM
Which side do the dowsers stand on?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 14, 2009 11:35 PM
Ha! Not binned this time!
Of course, no answer just yet...
Maybe he needs time.
Posted by: Interrobang | June 14, 2009 11:39 PM
The wingnut at my work sent me that nasty little poem in its original (ie. Canadian) form. As the grandchild of immigrants (of the sort who are now considered white but used to be considered about a step above subhuman) and a former welfare recipient (now gainfully employed in no small part because of a government return-to-work programme), I found it offensive on about seven levels at once. Now I just delete anything non-work-related that guy sends me.
Hovind's using it surprises me not at all -- syncretins tend to pick up any and all kinds of antirational thinking.
Posted by: strange gods before me | June 15, 2009 1:44 AM
syncretins
I like that.
Posted by: jim | June 15, 2009 5:43 AM
@Cuttlefish(#130) I see what you did there...
So let me get this straight. This charming little poem is used by white New Zealanders and Americans to complain about immigrants? They really do have no sense of irony, do they.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 5:52 AM
@ 124,
*Sigh*
Start here,and follow the evidence !
Posted by: jaffa | June 15, 2009 7:55 AM
Not seen this guy Eric before. I've lost quite a bit of faith in humanity, after hearing that the Grand Canyon wasn't forged from the river, but was the result of the great flood! It's nice to see though that pretty much every comment on his little diagram is telling him how wrong he has it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 8:03 AM
Have you heard of his dad?
Posted by: uksceptic | June 15, 2009 8:34 AM
I wonder where creationalists would consider their 'theory' on this scale?
Make observation - there is life
Invent hypothesis - creator made life
Test hypothesis - look in Bible
Test hypothesis lots of times - look in lots of Bible's talk to other people that have read the Bible
Test Theory - pray for confirmation - recieve confirmation
LAW (Dogma) - Ignore all contridictory evidence or alternative theories.
Posted by: Gra | June 15, 2009 12:36 PM
Hmmm. I asked Eric this morning in his comments section if he thought that being lazy on welfare was morally equivalent to defrauding the IRS, and to say "hi" to his dad for me.
Strangely enough it seems to have not been posted.
Posted by: jiggerhazzle | June 15, 2009 12:39 PM
That poem is just wretched. I mean, the rhyme scheme is terrible and the rhythm is all off.
Oh yeah, and it's horribly racist...and makes Hovind looks like a moron, which he is.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 15, 2009 12:45 PM
@ 133,
There, fixed it. Sorry, I don't like being lumped in with the asshats. Most of us get it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 12:53 PM
Don't you people give up on Ray just yet
uhhh
/jawfloor
Whether he's joking or not, I'm beginning to think Ray has a Bag of Holding filled with stupid.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 15, 2009 1:13 PM
Nice find there, Rev.
Ray has just offered an intersexual-selection hypothesis for the maintenance of male nipples, binocular vision, and central unirhinity*.
*yeah, made it up
Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 15, 2009 1:58 PM
@ 141,
He really can't be that stupid, can he? How the hell does he manage to breath?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 15, 2009 2:04 PM
Maybe we could borrow "theorem" from mathematics… it sounds kinda cool…
But the real reason I'm saying that is that I'm too lazy to look up what "theorem" means in math. I bet it's not really appropriate either.
"Principle" is not a good idea. It suggests something very simple, like a law.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 15, 2009 2:08 PM
I go back and forth between real actual stupidity or calculated willful ignorance for the benefit of his audience, because they eat this shit up.
I think there is a good mix of both.
Posted by: Eli | June 15, 2009 4:23 PM
Slightly off topic :
How Many Creationists Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb?
None - GOD made the light go down - this is his will, so if they try to fix it they would commit a crime against GOD => they would be atheists
Posted by: Spector567 | June 15, 2009 10:51 PM
After Micheal reveals that a literal interpretation of genesis is impossible including descriptions of hatches opening in the sky.
Eric responds:
"Michael, Your dead on! You can not reconcile evolution with a literal reading of the Bible. Great Point."
So out of a 1page long posts he takes from it that a literal interpretation of the bible doesn't support evolution. So does this mean that he believes the earth is flat and that it rains when hatches open in the ski? Because it does????
Are we sure this is actually Eric Hovind and not someone pretending to be a ravid creationist. I find it hard pressed to believe anyone would be so short sighted about everything.
Posted by: Robert S. | June 16, 2009 3:33 AM
Svetogorsk, good work but you seem to have missed the deeper source. An earlier version (1993) should have killed the career of Pete Knight. The same asshat that authored Prop 22, aka the California Defense of Marriage Act in 2000.
The earliest version of that racist little poem I could find on the tubes was posted to alt.pro-wrestling.wwf .http://groups.google.com/group/alt.pro-wrestling.wwf/msg/c8db74fc2bb56ae8?dmode=source
Given its history among stupid bigoted assholes it should have come as no surprise showing up somewhere in the ID camp. If only it had a better record of killing careers dead.
Posted by: jim | June 16, 2009 12:34 PM
@DJKnipfer(#140) My apologies. It wasn't my intention to imply that white Kiwis and Americans were necessarily racist. Those that are, though, should perhaps think twice before complaining about immigrants...
...what am I saying? If they thought once, they'd not be racist arseholes in the first place.
Posted by: Calilasseia | June 23, 2009 7:50 PM
Ah yes, Eric Hovind's recently discovered penchant for poetry. I have a piece he might like to add to his blog, or better still, E-Mail to daddy. Though I suspect that if this is ever posted on his blog, it will be expunged and subject to the usual creationist historical revisionism faster than you can say "AiG". Anyway, here goes ...
The Preacher Man
He comes to town, the preacher man,
Here to flog his latest scam;
The rubes, they flock from far and wide
To be taken for a ride;
They care not if it's lies they hear
Or if the speech sounds somewhat queer
They come to hear, with boundless glee
"You didn't come from monkeys, see?"
With smarmy grin and oily speech
He stands before the crowd to preach
"My magic man, he made you all"
And holds the rubes in silent thrall;
"You're special" is his clarion cry
Made from dirt, the reason why;
The rubes applaud, these simple folks,
They laugh inanely at his jokes.
"Those men of science know nothing, see?
Your ancestors weren't fish or trees!
All the answers that you need
Are in this book of myths, take heed!"
And so he spins his web of lies
Honest labours, thus decries,
He mocks the work of men who know
Whilst selling tales from long ago.
But little do the crowd suspect
That preacher man is not correct;
A wooden barge, a floating zoo?
How could such folly e'er be true?
Six days to build a universe?
Such thinking is perchance perverse!
And as for talking snakes, oh my
Mere fantasy from days gone by!
But not content to cheat the crowd
The preacher man, he thus avowed:
"I pay no tax, the money's mine!"
And bought himself a house so fine;
Not for him the laws of man,
He kept the loot from Dino Land
Whilst Leona's little people paid
Their dues on every cent they made.
Unabashed and unashamed
The preacher man, he thus declaimed
His right to keep his shekels all,
Oh was he heading for a fall!
The IRS declared high noon
"We want the preacher man's doubloons!"
And so they took him to the court
And evidence and charges brought ...
The preacher man, he lied again
This time on oath, with such disdain
"I have no funds"! he tried to claim
But none believed his smooth refrain;
And so he went from house so fine
To prison cell, to do his time
Ten years he'll serve, the penance due
For fraud upon both me and you.
The moral of this sorry tale
When lies you tell, oh how you fail!
No more he peddles to the throng
His noxious creed of blatant wrong;
Instead he bleats within his cell
The whinings of the n'er do well
Oh preacher man, you are a fool
And need to go straight back to school!
Posted by: peter | November 22, 2009 4:00 PM
what do you expect from a jail bird who is spending time for corruption in the name of religion.