After writing a few responses to the posts in the trilogy of recent diaries billing themselves as "Humanist Response To Kicking Creationist Ass (parts 1, 2 and 3)" I kept finding myself not hitting the POST button. And I wasn't sure why I felt disinclined to respond, I just felt the whole diary series just over the edge indefensible. And the more I tried to be more reasoned and civil, the less likely my (not posted) responses were to themselves being civil or decent. Deep breaths, some time away from the keyboard and now this dairy. I kept going back to how these three diaries contorted fact while concurrently they deified fiction. Over and over, scientific theory and methodology and data and evidence were so thoroughly dismissed and discredited. And all the while, faith (and the leap therein) was elevated to such a level as to be as empirically comparable to science.
Then it began to become clear -- my anger was not so much at the trolling behavior, but the fact that someone was trying to pull a fast one over on me. And I hate being duped.
More below the fold
Honestly, there are "lurkers" and there are "flamers" and there are "stalkers" and "snarkers" and there are even "trolls." All describe to one extent or other types of folks who frequent or who post in such cyber-spaces. But what does one call the person whose behavior and uniquely Luddite-esque demeanor surpasses the outer limits one commonly would cite to define "troll?"
The "Humanist/Creationist AssKick Diary" series has been an exercise in immaculate self-absorption. No other way to describe the privileged-perspective of the author who decided to post these Trojan Horse rants, deceptively titled as a Humanist approach to Kicking Creationist Ass. No such luck if that's what you came here to read since it has nothing to do with "kicking" any ass. No, that's not entirely true. The diary does kick a proverbial "ass," if by "ass" the diarist meant every sentient person on this site and their sense of decency and healthy respect for facts over fiction. The trilogy is as instructive as milk.
For the person who would willingly disbelieve a Carbon-14 dating process and in lieu of it place blind and unconditional support behind the Bible, here is a four word answer: The Epic of Gilgamesh. In a later "chapter" of "The Epic of Gilgamesh" a flood story is told, and by historian accounts, is probably the basis for what was LATER to be written by the Biblical authors as the story of Noah. The Epic Of Gilgamesh -- in its current known artifact form -- was written well over 4000 years ago and is based on earlier recorded versions of the same epic centuries earlier.
Flood stories are not unique to either Mesopotamian cultures nor is the "deity versus man along with some type of redemption/saving lesson" novel. The two salient facts in citing the Epic and its flood myth are obvious: the epic is an older written document than the Bible; and again, it is written down. In summary, written word texts exist that are older than 4,000 years old.
In fact, data from the archeological excavations of Jerusalem itself point to hieroglyphic writings, known as the Ma'arot Writings. These were written in the 18th and 19th centuries B.C., on small statues of prisoners or on bowls.
Quick review: when someone writes that
because there is only 4,000 years of written record (i.e. natural history),
they quite simply are wrong.
One person who posted in the final entry in this trilogy suggested that the author review the Lascaux paintings since these paintings, a form of communication, recorded communication, between humans, our ancestors, are much, much older than 4,000 years old. That is great counsel.
The author may also want to check out the oldest known cave paintings, which have been dated to be roughly 26,000 years old (that would be almost 7 times older than the alleged date when recorded historical records happen, according to the diarist). Here is a great link for the Cave of Chauvet - Pont D'Arc . It is worth noting that the Pont D'Arc discovery happened just a decade ago.
Along with what seems to be a consistent theme in cave painting from this time period of horses, horses and more horses, Pont D'Arc has some exceptionally unique finds to it, one of which is the wall marked in pattern by individuals patting the wall with a red dye on the palms, marking the wall as unique, designating some form of value to that wall in relation to that cave. Another particular archeological find in this cave is the footprint of a young adolescent male's left foot. There is also the painting of a Venus figurine.
26,000 years ago. Written, in pictorial form. Showing pictures of extinct animals from that region of France.
To be as bald as the diary author was in his/her dismissal of Darwin's writing when s/he writes:
I don't hold myself out as anything other than someone who has read some Darwin, along with some other related stuff.
the question is begged: which Darwin have you read? When? Which Darwin have you not read? Why not?
Because when all lumped together, the basis for the rejection of evolution as having any basis in fact, a.k.a. creationism having validity is predicated upon the following points:
- No written texts older than 4000 years old;
- Never have seen evolution;
- An admittedly insufficient reading of the works of Darwin; and
- An unquestioning belief in the historical accuracy of a compilation of stories and fables and myths and contradictory texts and revisionist historical perspective (known as the Bible).
This is not a knock on the Bible per se, but for someone to have staked claim against empirical evidence and instead invested it in the Bible, one has to question the validity of that position. The first part of the Bible was not specifically meant (ever) to be taken literally. Secondly, if in fact the Bible is an historically accurate document, then where is the Temple of Solomon? I'm tempted to wonder out loud if the diary author is clear about the mythological importance of an amphictyony or for that matter that David invaded and conquered Jerusalem, but those are probably too tangential.
At the close of this trilogy, the diary author would have us believe that evolution is a religion, a faith-based exercise that does not belong being taught in our schools. The diarist would have us believe that by striking the evolution "faith" myth, that we would be honoring the separation of church and state. Which of course is utter nonsense, as the diarist would also have us believe that the religious underpinnings of our founding fathers infuses us with an unmistakable and unifying imprint of the Creator:
We should never erase the history of our Republic from our children's minds. Our Founding Fathers many of them who were not Christian, believed in a Creator. That's what truly binds us. That's what made this country of ours great. These are the people we inherited our rights from.
Actually, a few facts that should be highlighted in our history are as follows:
* The word "God" appears a total of zero times in the US Constitution; and
* The word "god" appears Twice and only twice in the Federalist Papers.
And, just for one more fact:
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Source: here
What makes this country great is in fact a multi-faceted answer. Arguably, one could cite (on the macro-level of analysis) that when the U.S. demonstrates its capacity to respect the vision of the founding fathers, to not only maintain the separation of church and state, but to do so in the spirit of the Enlightenment Period (John Locke, specifically, Hume etc. to a far lesser degree) as what makes it "great." As the country has evolved, however, we know that redress has played a far more catalytic role to our growth and maturation and realization of the principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" than has a commonly-held understanding of a deity/Creator/faith. The Constitution is a contract between the people, the state and the federal government. Recasting the funding father's pragmatic approach to governance in a "Creator-centric" light can only be viewed for the deceptive rewrite that it is.
The slight-of-hand trap the diary tries to reinforce is that science is nothing more than religion. This is pure Orwell. But sadly the tactic is ridiculous in this context. When Reagan's cuts to the school lunch programs meant the elimination of healthy and balanced meals, and when pressed for proof, Reagan was told that is cuts would eliminate vegetables from these lunch programs. Not one to be confused by facts, Reagan's response, which would equally comfortable in this trilogy, followed this syllogism:
1. The lunches had ketchup;
2. and since catsup was made from tomatoes;
3. and since tomatoes are a vegetable;
4. therefore, ketchup was a vegetable.
The diarist's version goes something like this:
1. Religion requires faith;
2. and since faith is what one employs to believe in things without a factual basis;
3. and since Evolution lacks a factual basis;
4. therefore Evolution is a religion.
But just as this syllogism is flawed, it serves the diaries. Well, it serves them to a point; as the diarist will abandon the syllogism as soon as it fails to serve the diarist's point. (As a digression; this tactic of employing a argument line only as long as it serves the diarist's belief system is perhaps the only true consistency across all the diaries in this series).
Anyway, as I was saying... Since we are a nation predicated on the separation of church and state, no "religion" should be forced upon our citizenry, especially our children in our educational settings. That, per se, would not unsettle anyone, as we adhere or hope the government would adhere to such a principle, namely no state-sanctioned religion, etc.
Perhaps yes, but here is the twist; you can see where it is going. Evolution is religion, separation of church and state -- therefore no evolution. The diarist's point is that if we trust this humanist, then it is only logical that we see the folly of evolution as being something we'd condone being taught in our schools because it violates the Constitution.
What is most galling however in this ruse is that in constructing this ploy, the trilogy's author claims to be a humanist. That in appearance perhaps, but in practice, what we are being hoodwinked into granting validity is the work of a Creationist disguised as a Humanist.
Consider these:
Evolution and/or Creationism science should not be taught in the public school system. That is for parents, churches and the community to decide for their children. If parents and churches want to teach evolution or creationism they can do that in the privacy of their own homes, and there is ample public media for both sides to air their debates. On the other hand, not once have I ever said that children cannot express their opinions, objections, questions, or wonderings on the awesomeness of earth, space, humanity, and life itself inside school premises.
[snip] and this:
There is no hope in evolution, we will all die someday in this vast bubble called the universe, with no hope of any "after life". And no I don't believe in the "rapture" or "ghosts", or what variety of phraseology you use to mischaracterize what I believe. But I do believe that when I die, the next thing I will see is Christ's return to this planet to save it from itself. Save it from its own "evolution" contemporarily speaking, and at least 4,000 years of written record to back me up. Its my personal belief. And I'm not ashamed to say it.
But there is hope. There is hope beginning with this discussion, that evolutionist, Christians, agnostics, Jews, secularist such as myself, will come to understand that everything we hear and see isn't true. Such as Bush bamboozling our nation into this never ending "war on terrorism" and this retarded Iraq debacle of immoral human tragedy.
[snip] and this:
I hope to see the day when no belief system is taught in the public schools, except love for country and good civics, with real morals taught and practiced, respect for community, parents, teachers, and student pears alike. When our public education system is world class and second to none. Where they get a good education they deserve. An education that they they can take with themselves when they graduate ready to make a middle class income where they can own their own homes.
No more survival of the fittest. No more brainwashing our children. No more Gestapo lies. No more Nazi eugenics. No more communist style physiological warfare either. No more armed to the teeth drug raids on our schools. No more psychological manipulations.
Were ever possible institute school uniforms. Whenever equal, everyone learns equality. :)
Leopards, as the adage goes, can never really hide their spots. I'm quite sure that there is some debate in the creationist milieu that involves spotted leopards, but that's not my point. My point is this: I was first pulled into the first of 3 diaries because it's title and opening line:
My Humanist Response to Kicking Creationist ASS
by real
[Subscribe]
Fri Apr 8th, 2005 at 20:53:23 PST
this is taken from a diary entitled "How To Open Up A Can Of Whup Ass On Creationists"
These led me to believe that it shared some sort of parentage from DarkSydes brilliant diary entry from April 7th How To Open Up A Can Of Whup Ass On Creationists.
But once in, there was no parentage, no linear confection, not at all. Instead there was a dizzying litany of half-cobbled, half-melted, half-baked and unsubstantiated factoids and unfounded assertions. And when confronted with valid, scientific criticisms (and some well-earned snark), what we do not see is even a willingness to entertain the possibility of the implausibility of the trilogy's premise. The leopard ultimately is showing his (or her) spots takes three diaries of such willful ignoring of data, reasoning and definition before it culminates in the diarist's ultimate revelation: A creationist, faking as a Humanist, but ultimately a creationist.
Goodwin's law finally makes a much more studied presence, and in one fell swoop, those who would dare believe that evolution as a scientific theory based on sound and empirical data and evidence are lumped together in the same camp as Nazi eugenic butchers, Drug cartel profiteers, the CIA and President Bush.
The diarist would - in an act of utter selflessness, choose to have school systems teach NO evolution and NO creationism. And in such a grand act of martyrdom, the entire con job is exposed. My EUREKA! moment if you will. (only I did no such naked-running this time when it dawned on me what was going on here. I still am working off he last time I did that).
The conclusion to the trilogy, the "dream" of the future, the whole point of this exercise in futility -- to educate our kids in the best way possible - is just a con job. Instead, the diaries in toto want instead to deny rational and empirical teaching to our children. They want to make our kids good little middle class home-owning -aspiring patriots with good morals, a strong sense of civic duty and chauvinism, conformity based on uniformity literally as well as figuratively (yes, the author does suggest that all kids in our educational systems wear uniforms).
The trilogy was nothing more than a very glorified remake of the not-even-B-Movie Cross Examination trap "have you stopped beating your neighbor?"
So, ultimately I left these diaries a bit bewildered, even more baffled, much more saddened. But as I finished up typing this diary I suddenly realized that I left these diaries a little giddier. Giddier? Yeah. I had forgotten one part of the second diary that actually made me laugh until I damn near wet myself.
In my writing of this review, I had the distinct pleasure of reacquainting myself with one of the funnier moments I have had in reading anything on DailyKos.
Let's just give the comment a context. In all likelihood, the diarist would have been at odds with Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial. BUT, not for the disagreement over the scientific merit of the issue. Nope. The diarist would fid no resonance with a common ancestral connection expressly because of a what Kenny self-diagnosis himself as having in the original Mr. Hanky episode - yup: Fecalphobia:
say I come from a monkey, I say no way Jose, none of my ancestors were picking their asses and eating it.
First off, just choose one big Family Reunion Labor Day Picnic, any one. Any where. I would wager every penny of my next check - all of it - that as independent observers, You KNOW we'd find at least ONE person (distant cousin, younger brother, fourth cousin, sister-in-law's uncle, etc.) doing the thong tugger, the spelunker's manual excavation routine, the plumber's prowl, the crack dig, the Scratch-n-Sniff "Butt It Itches" two-step. But I digress.
Sorry. As I was saying...
The truth is that when primates groom each other, what they pick off the other primate (if anything at all since the ritual is about breaking down personal space and allowing for proximity to not be seen as a territorial threat) is usually something like a flea or a tick, and Not, I repeat NOT, a dingleberry. There is hardly any meaningful comparison between those very, very different little presents that one discovers in someone else's hair.