An Excellent Example of Creationist Stupidity

I’ll take a quick potshot at Creationism today, since it’s easier and less time-consuming to write about than what I usually cover. Via Tangled Up In Blue Guy, an excellent example of someone speaking authoritatively about something they have no clue about:

To shock the Darwinists out of their denial of the overwhelming evidence in Greek art for the reality of Genesis events, the author urges Creationists to refer to evolutionists as what they imagine they are—”Slime-Snake-Monkey-People.” Mr. Johnson, who holds a general science degree from West Point, also suggests that since Slime-Snake-Monkey-People insist they evolved over millions of years through a countless series of random mutations, Christians should also refer to them as “mutants.”

If  you’ve ever spent much time on any Creationist websites or blogs, this will be depressingly familiar. How many glaring errors are they in this single paragraph? Let’s count them together!

1. To shock the Darwinists out of their denial of the overwhelming evidence in Greek art for the reality of Genesis events…

If any enterprising Creationists are reading this, feel free to go and find me a verified, accepted  example of a scientific impossibility being proven by examining ancient artwork. I’ll sit here and wait.

2. the author urges Creationists to refer to evolutionists as what they imagine they are—”Slime-Snake-Monkey-People.”

The phrase I’ve highlighted is stupid for obvious reasons, but it also contains a string of scientific inaccuracies. Evolution is not a linear progression from ‘slime’ to ‘snake’ (?) to ‘monkey’ (??) to ‘people’ – this isn’t even correct as a cartoonish abstraction of what the theory of evolution describes. Of course, it’s difficult to reduce masses of phylogenetic trees to a sarcastic string of words, so I guess ‘Mr. Johnson’ decided (as Creationists always do) that reality is something that can be discounted.

Another problem is, of course, that even if evolution was a linear progression from ‘ancient animals’ to ‘human’, snakes and monkeys wouldn’t be anywhere on the list. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen it repeated that modern animals did not evolve from other modern animals, but whoever taught Johnson his general science apparently didn’t get the memo.

3. also suggests that since Slime-Snake-Monkey-People insist they evolved over millions of years through a countless series of random mutations, Christians should also refer to them as “mutants.”

I’m guessing this is supposed to be insulting, but I’m having trouble figuring out why. Under this (erroneous) definition, every single living organism on the planet is indeed a ‘mutant’. In internet-speak, the author of this erudite piece has ‘failed hard’.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “An Excellent Example of Creationist Stupidity”


  1. 1 cooledskin January 19, 2009 at 12:13 am

    I just read through some of your archives. Your blog is fascinating, it’s a shame more people don’t comment!

    The real tragedy of this post in particular is that a) no creationist will ever read it seriously and b) even if they did, they would discount your input because you don’t have a degree in general science (whatever the hell that is), and therefore aren’t a credible source. Though I doubt they’d ever look for one anyway.

  2. 2 Mike January 19, 2009 at 12:54 am

    Thanks for linking to Tangled Up in Blue Guy. First thing I wasted to mention was that the snippet that comes up in the comment from the link back is the phrase “an excellent example of someone speaking authoritatively about something they have no clue about:”

    I thought you were referring to me as the person who has no clue, but then I came to this post to read what you were saying. Very nicely done.

    I think that Johnson knows more about evolution than he lets on, but he is a propagandist and that is why he uses such misleading language.

  3. 3 augustine January 19, 2009 at 11:51 am

    Yes, that’s the danger of getting those little link-back things – very often it tells you nothing about what the linked post is about! I’m sure Johnson probably does know enough about evolution to not say such silly things, although he’s also got some pretty weird ideas about art and history as well.

    cooledskin:

    Most of the ‘leading’ Creationists don’t have any real science education, so that shouldn’t be a problem! But you’re right, I’m more likely to get some AIG regurgitated crap in response to this than anything else.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: