Potential O'Brien Trophy Nominee

A reader sent me a link to this post by Steve Benen about an Eagle Forum article on evolution and creationism. No, Steve is not the potential O'Brien Tropy nominee, the author of the document he cites is. That author appears to be "Virginia Armstrong, PhD", the national chairman of the Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlaffly's group). I don't know what her PhD is in or where it's from, but it sure isn't in critical thinking. Wait until you see this positively breathtaking nugget of stupidity that she drops concerning evolution:

Fact v. Fiction #2: Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

The emphasis was in the original - because when you say something that monumentally idiotic, you want to say it as emphatically as possible. She also apparently hasn't gotten the memo because she still calls it "creation science". Virginia, the preferred phrase is now "intelligent design". Do try and get it right.

More like this

She should turn the focus of her enormous intellect towards other productive ends, like analyzing the face on Mars and figuring out how the ancient astronauts built the pyramids. Then she could let us know about the black helicopters and the UN army poised to take over the US under the leadership of Hillary Clinton. Or does her logic just sound that way?

Her Ph.D. (according to her bio) is in political science and public law, from where oddly it doesn't say. Curiously, her bio says she holds "the" Ph.D., and not "a" Ph.D. Maybe she has the only one.

Before awarding her the O'Brien chalice for her evolutionary views, please consider also her views on the law via her paper, The Constitutionalist Manifesto.

Summary...the Constitution is rock solid and is (luckily!) moored on the "Judeo-Christian" world view.

Whatever that is.

Hehe, this quote is really making the rounds! I saw it on internet infidels and I think I saw it on christianforums.com (although I may be mistaken). I even submitted this to FSTDT.com (http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=8664). I'm guessing the evolution side is having a good laugh at her expense.

Where did creationists get the odd notion that it was evolutionary biology that first classified man as an animal? Linnaeus had us pegged as members of that kingdom long before that, and he wasn't the first to notice.

OK, I followed the link to that Constitutionalist Manifesto bullshit above, thinking it might be good for a laugh or two. My head nearly exploded; I may not be able to think straight for the rest of the day. We're talking mind numbing, tin-foil hat wearing, Dr. Dino-level idiocy here. This woman is such a raving idiot, I'm pretty sure OSHA or HHS regs require that she be affixed with a warning label. She is, indeed, a deserving candidate for the O'Brien Trophy, and will represent it well. Congrats, Ed, on another fine choice.

I particular like her term "judicial restraintists", as opposed of course to those anticonstitutional liberal judical activists.

That Constitutionalist Manifesto is a treasure. I loved the part in point 9 which runs "The world view in which the Constitution is moored is the Judeo-Christian world view. Therefore, the ultimate foundation of the Constitution is Judeo-Christian religious/theological values and views, revolving around a theistic God."

Yup, better watch out for those nontheistic and atheistic gods.

My God, that's fantastic. I'll be laughing at that for the rest of the day.

By chrisberez (not verified) on 16 Dec 2005 #permalink

Then there's this one: "The ultimate foundation of the Constitution is not the Humanistic world view, demanding that a human agent or group of human agents (i.e., judicial elite) ravage the Constitution with Humanistic perspectives, purposes, and values."

Cute. Myself, I've never been "ravaged" with a "perspective" of any kind, much less a humanistic one. But I'll try anything once. These days I get ravaged little enough as it is.

We are also told that "we can alter the document only within the limits allowed by the Judeo-Christian value system." But damned if I can find any provision of our own constitution requiring that it be amended only in ways that conform to Christianity.

The phrases "whipping the flames" and "a white-hot heat" are cute, too.

Consider also how Armstrong fetishizes permanence and supremacy: "The American legal system must, by definition of a 'legal system,' be anchored in a supreme, fundamental permanent law to give it stability and direction."

It seems to me that Americans could amend the Constitution in ways that are completely consistent with its own provisions yet ultimately make it into something quite different from what it was when it was adopted. It is simply not "permanent" in the sense Armstrong wishes it to be. Yet it still anchors a legal system.

No, no, I looked it up. The Declaration of Independence clearly begins: "We the Animals of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."