Important Notice

Special captions are available for the humor-impaired.


Saturday, September 17, 2005

Myths, Lies, and Propaganda Vs. Science

For many years when people said “autistic” I thought they were saying “artistic.” Those were very confusing times for me and I met with many blank stares when I attempted to enter into those conversations. I didn’t know the difference between “empathy” and “sympathy.” I’m sure that people laughed at me openly; there certainly must have been a lot of talk behind my back, but I was blissful in my ignorance. I started looking up words in the dictionary and now I have a fairly good grasp of English, which allows me the time to make a fool of myself in other languages.

I have often written of my shortcomings in the area of technology. My knowledge of computers is Forest Gumpian, Rain Man-esque, I Am Sam-sonian, Sling Blade-like, and—not to leave out the fine film starring Cuba Gooding Junior—Retardio. Nope, there isn’t much concerning computers about which I couldn’t learn something new.

When I am watching Jeopardy, the natural sciences aren’t exactly my strong suit either. What I’m trying to say is that I’m not the smartest guy on the planet, but even I am not stupid enough to believe in creationism or intelligent design. How big of a fucking dope would you have to be to believe in that crap?

I thought that America had finally clubbed all of the creationists to death a decade ago and moved on, intellectually speaking. To treat creationism as something serious is just too silly to consider. I’m not ashamed of my great-grandfather’s ignominious exile from France a century ago so I am not embarrassed by the fact that man evolved from apes millions of years in the past.

Intelligent design seems to be simply a public relations gimmick courtesy of the fatuous Discovery Institute. I don’t see what motivates the folks at the Discovery Institute except the desire to keep people ignorant and fearful of science. I hate it when people refer to propaganda centers like the Discovery Institute as “think tanks.” These places are not about thinking, they are about trying to foster support for conclusions already agreed upon by the sponsors. Universities are “think tanks,” and almost every single scientist in every single accredited university accepts evolution.

A lot of corporate-sponsored “think tanks” are fairly transparent in their motivations. An institute funded by the oil companies will lampoon global warming and deride the work of conservation groups because these get in the way of the oil companies’ bottom line. But why would corporations fund phony research to create a load of shit like intelligent design? Where is the money? Whose bottom line is being threatened by evolution? About the only thing that I can come up with is that the motivation behind the discovery Institute is to keep people ignorant and to make these ignorant people they create tilt at stupid windmills like this phony “controversy” over evolution.


  1. What we have here is failure to communicate!
    “What we have here is failure to communicate!” Maybe not an original quote, but as far as the Evolution / Creation debate goes, perhaps a very appropriate one!
    The constant war of words between Darwinists and Creationists has been ongoing for many years and has not been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. Perhaps we should go right back to the very basics and start to build from there; just to see what happens!
    First of all we have to take a position that there is either a God, or there is not!
    If there is no God then the Darwinists are absolutely right and everything was created by dumb luck and there is no purpose to anything!
    I can see why evolutionists have been so adamant that natural selection and the progression of lower life forms into higher ones, without outside help, seem to be the natural order of things. They have a compelling argument and the term; “Just the facts, Ma’am” bear them out.
    However, the supposition that life, and by correlation intelligence, is the result of blind chance with no interference from a God, is the same as saying that by default there is no God! In other words, to accept evolution from a scientific point of view without taking into account the theological implications of the Atheists being right, does a great disservice to anyone who has any feelings at all of a religious/spiritual nature.
    I personally cannot imagine a world where there is no God at all. That this whole kit-and-caboodle we call the Universe is just a random organization of the basic elements with no ultimate purpose! This extremist’s view is no better than those of religious fanatics who try and tell me that the world is no more than seven thousand years old. Both are the result of people polarized in their own views and beliefs. After all, a belief that there is no God is in no way any different than the view that there is a God; both depend on a personal belief system, since neither can be scientifically proven!
    This is not to say that we should teach the biblical version of the creation of the universe as literal truth since any rational, semi-educated person realizes that Holy Scripture is a compilation of parables, prophesy, folk-lore, metaphor’s and common sense in a first century context! Nor should we refer to the bible as a historical work since it is more concerned with the mind-set and morality of people than an account of their achievements!
    If we can learn to distinguish between the metaphorical and the historical aspects of the scriptures then it makes it all the easier to differentiate between the divergent aims of scientific and theological schools of thought. Just as the far right claims biblical truth and rejects scientific evidence, the Darwinists are at a loss to explain how the Universe (The Big Bang) came into being from absolutely nothing.
    It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Both are different and have a different purpose. To attempt a comparison is the same as looking for common ground when talking about two totally different things.
    With this in mind there is no real conflict between religion and science. God is by God’s very nature unknowable. What I object to is the human trait of forming special interest groups whose sole job is giving only their explanation of God and even making proclamations and laws in God's name. This to me is the height of human arrogance and self-deception.
    We do not know how God interacts with our universe and should not use one philosophy (religion or science) to try and explain the other. “Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's.” In other words, I am all for teaching Creationism in school; as soon as they start teaching evolution in church!
    I have a theory, and it’s called Evolution!
    I have a belief, and it’s called Intelligent Design!

    Allan W Janssen

    (Excerpts from my book “God-101, what the church doesn’t want you to know!”)

  2. There is no debate between evolution ad creationism. Evolution is science and the other is fairy tale.


If you can't say something nice, say it here.