The Duggars—Parasites of Science

I’ve received a bit of flack, both in the comments on this site and elsewhere on the web, for my humorous but negative articles on the Duggar family. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are extreme fundamentalists. Their irresponsible and rampant fertility strains an already overpopulated world.

One of the things that bothers me the most about the Duggars isn’t limited to them. Almost all fundies are equally at fault on this one point (it’s just more obvious with the Duggars). That point is:

Fundies are scientific parasites!

A parasite is an organism that sucks life from its host and provides nothing in return. This would be bad enough if it were merely freeloading, but a parasite actually burdens the host. Pile enough parasites onto one host, and it dies.

Christian fundamentalism and its toxic products (creationism, theocracy, superstition, misinformation, prejudice, fear, hate, etc.) are spreading. They even managed to get one of their own elected president.

The Duggars and almost all fundies suck all the benefits they can from the modern world—most notably the miracles of modern medicine—yet they deny evolution, the very core of modern biology, that makes all of this medicine possible.

As their ilk continue to press for the evisceration of science standards taught in the public schools, they are weakening the very host that gives them life.

I found a couple of excellent articles at Look Out, It’s Evil!. In the first article Professor Bleen has altered the Duggar family portrait to make the following point:

The Duggar spawn without modern medicine.

[T]he reason that the Duggars have [seventeen] live, healthy children, instead of nine or ten clinging to life with varying success, is the triumph of science over the medieval superstition they teach their children—and want taught to all American schoolchildren—in place of science.

That’s right. Without modern science, without modern biology, without evolution!, their healthy, giant family would be neither healthy nor quite so giant. Yet they advocate policies that would destroy the very miracles that they enjoy.

Professor Bleen has another article that is even better. He writes:

I rant about the Duggars not for their beliefs per se, but because they insist they have the right to force their medieval view of Nature on the rest of us Americans, while simultaneously feeling entitled to the benefits of the very science that they decry.

Professor Bleen does more than just complain. He offers a solution, which I heartily endorse:

With this in mind, here’s my proposal: anyone who lobbies, publicly, in favor of abandoning modern biology, should forfeit all the advantages that modern biology has provided us. It only makes sense.

It makes perfect sense, Professor! It’s time to put a stop to these scientific tapeworms.

Jim Bob Duggar.

Jim Bob Duggar: A portrait

277 Responses to “The Duggars—Parasites of Science”

  1. Ron Britton Says:

    Bunkie:

    And this: “omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God” you believe because the bible tells you so?

    You’re too late, by several decades. There’s a little rhyme that’s drummed into their heads at a young age:

    Jesus loves me, this I know
    For the Bible tells me so.

    All critical thought is extinguished right there.

  2. Amy Says:

    S.-I have seen this video. It’s a good one. In my opinion, the coincidences are simply TOO AMAZING to have been the result of happenstance. 🙂

    If you like this video, you might like the allaboutscience.org site. They have this and many other interesting videos.

  3. Amy Says:

    Ron-What exactly makes a scientist reputable? Who sets the standards?

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    What exactly makes a scientist reputable? Who sets the standards?

    Reality. Facts. Things that can be directly measured and observed and not denied.

    The problem we have is not a simple matter of disagreeing over interpretation of facts. That’s miles above where you’re at. You don’t even accept the facts.

  5. Amy Says:

    Ron-I am not the only person in the world who believes in creation. Isn’t that a fact and reality? MANY people and scientists do not buy into the so called “facts” that you speak of. This is the only reason these scientists are not considered reputable. It has nothing to do with their educational qualifications.

    I have read a lot of views and arguments by both sides. The creationists make valid scientific arguments. For example, the video link S. provided.

    How can the age of the universe be measured, observed and not denied?

  6. Ron Britton Says:

    I am not the only person in the world who believes in creation.

    This is the Argumentum ad populum fallacy (appeal to the majority). Was the Earth flat for millennia, only to pop into its current globular shape once we figured out that it was round?

    Isn’t that a fact and reality?

    Yes, it’s a fact and reality that people believe it. That doesn’t mean it’s correct.

    MANY people and scientists do not buy into the so called “facts” that you speak of.

    As I said. You are rejecting reality. These are all things that can be measured. If you choose to call the day night, I can not help you.

    This is the only reason these scientists are not considered reputable. It has nothing to do with their educational qualifications.

    They are not considered reputable, because they are unable to provide any evidence for their batshit ideas. Not one creation scientist has ever produced any hypothesis that has stood up to independent verification. That is how you know whether somebody is qualified. Would you go to a surgeon who lost every single one of his patients? Creation scientists have failed in everything they’ve done. Deny that fact!

    I have read a lot of views and arguments by both sides. The creationists make valid scientific arguments.

    No they do not. You do not have a science education. You are not qualified to make that statement. All you know is that something sounds plausible. Sounding plausible and actually being plausible aren’t even on the same planet.

    For example, the video link S. provided.

    I don’t have the time to debunk that, and you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Maybe somebody else has more patience.

    How can the age of the universe be measured, observed and not denied?

    If you had a science education, you’d know that. We’ve tried to give you one, but you reject all of our attempts. Anything that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions of what must be you reject without thought.

  7. S. Says:

    thx,Amy.
    I recall reading that the atmosphere would be far too dense if earth were really more than a few thousand yrs old.
    To the evolutionists..I was thinking about the rods and cones in our eyes…they are for seeing color.They were designed that way.
    And earth is colorful,no doubt..so which came first,the color ..or the rods and cones? 🙂

  8. Amy Says:

    Bunkie-Ron is now making a blanket statement about me. He says that the “Jesus Loves Me” hymn has brainwashed me and all Christians. Therefore, we have no capacity for critical thought.

    This seems like a convenient excuse to simply disregard anything I may say. Why bother? She’s just one of those brainwashed zombies.

  9. LadyRavana Says:

    *snickers*

    Poor Amy. She seems to live by that Mythbusters adage: “I reject your reality and substitute my own!” Really, all the Fundies seem to live by this.

    (BTW, not dissing Mythbusters. I love that show.;) )

    Dunno if anyone else has seen this, or posted it, but I thought I’d toss the link here:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/19/notes101905.DTL

    A bit dated, but a hilarious article.

  10. Ron Britton Says:

    Ron is now making a blanket statement about me. He says that the “Jesus Loves Me” hymn has brainwashed me and all Christians. Therefore, we have no capacity for critical thought.

    It’s not a blanket statement. You’re the one who has amply demonstrated your incapacity for critical thought. I was just explaining the process that got you there.

  11. Amy Says:

    Ron-What attempts have I rejected? I’ve gone to the sites you claim have all the answers. I don’t see the answers. I see lists of fossil names. I see statements, but no proof. I see speculation based on conjecture. I don’t reject your attempts; I reject what those sites state as absolute fact.

    I guess if I had a science education I would easily be able to see that the entire universe is the result of an accidental explosion of nothing. The design and complexity of all living systems is the result of random chance. Everything is an accident, so there’s no reason to figure anything out. Everything is futile and purpose is an imaginary concept.

    This is “reality” and these are the “facts”?

  12. Amy Says:

    Ron-What process? Someone sang a song and I became hypnotized. Is that how it went? Wouldn’t you have “observe” this happening before you could state it as fact?

  13. Amy Says:

    I reject a theory, therefore I prove that I have no capacity for critical thought.

  14. Ron Britton Says:

    What attempts have I rejected? I’ve gone to the sites you claim have all the answers. I don’t see the answers.

    You’ve just proven everything I said about you.

  15. Amy Says:

    Ron-Whatever you say. TOA has all the answers to life on earth and in the universe and all the reputable evidence to back it up.

    Everyone should go there and find all the answers. Also, don’t forget to go to the SAB site. Life’s questions answered and Christianity debunked! Amen!

  16. Bunkie Says:

    Sorry Amy, I’m not a good person to come crying to about Ron’s statement. Those songs ARE drummed into little kids’ heads and they do brainwash, whether intended by their parents or not. The parents were probably brainwashed the same way as children. I was on the receiving end of that. But one doesn’t have to stay brainwashed. Everyone has be capacity for critical thought, if used. You have a capacity for critical thought so use it.

    Ron’s remark wasn’t being used as a “convenient excuse” to disregard anything you say. Yes, it was a blanket statement but I didn’t see him say it was a blanket statement about you specifically. You said that. You took it as a personal statement about you.

    People, including Ron, have been attempting to educate you, to help you to understand evolution etc. They (Ron and ParrotLover77 in particular) haven’t said “why bother?”. If they had, they wouldn’t have kept on trying to help. That’s the way they are but, even they will eventually run out of patience.

    I suspect you really do not wish to find contradictory evidence to your beliefs. And that being so, you will turn a blind eye to that evidence and the science behind it and nothing will change for you. Too bad. Your loss.

  17. Sarah Says:

    S: Sorry, but that comments of yours is hardly what I call educational.

    Just because something is complex doesn’t make it designed, hon. As Parrot said (I think on this site but a different article) A feather that floats off a building has the chance of landing anywhere…but it all has the same probability of it landing in the space that it did and for it landing in any other space.

    And the whole rods and cones argument…sorry, but color always has a reason. Actually every aspect of life does! If you look at every single natural thing in this world, there is a reason for it and it all links back to survival (Now you might find that vestigial organs still exist in many species like ourselves: appendixes for example, but they were all useful once…nothing happens just ‘because’)

    Look at plants if you do not believe me. The reason they are green is because they use blue and red light to collect sunlight and the color that is not vair effective for this is reflected out onto their leafs (I.e. green)

    Think of skin pigment, which is a defense against the sun’s UV rays.

    Hell, let’s make it even more obvious: think of camouflage and color attraction used by flowers. The color is not there to be pretty (Well…for flowers it is, but that goes back to attracting pollinators, etc, etc) it has a reason, just like the eye (rods and cones included)

    This all links back into evolution because it is more advantageous to have things like sight and color differentiation than it is to not have it (Although that depends on the environment itself, it’s pressures, and the mutations within a select population)

    As for eyes themselves, many creatures have lived without eyesight or light itself even up to now. Why do they not get color?

    BECAUSE IT IS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM.

    A tubeworm living at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is going to find eyesight as useful as a toothbrush. Being seven miles down and having its entire colony feeding off nutrients spewing out of hydrothermal vents prevents it from having and needing sunlight. They have their food source; they can’t move (cause they don’t need to) and thrive.

    (Coughs) As for the ‘If Earth was older, the atmosphere would be thicker’ I have never heard of this argument and I’ve met quite a few creationists…explain it to me and I will probably debunk it using some basic 10th grade science.

    Amy: If creationism had really been proven, than evolution, abiogenesis, etc would have been tossed out decades ago. The reason we still have them is because they have been backed up by tons of evidence (Fossil records, mutations, speciation, DNA replication, basic geology, Endogenous Retroviruses, etc)

    Now maybe if in the future (with the development of new technology, more funding, etc), we found out that all of this (Which is vair unlikely…this would be like overturning the theory of gravity and relativity even after all the evidence and facts we have compiled over the years) was in fact wrong…then scientists would STILL not turn to creationism for the answer. They would keep searching for the answers (That is the whole goal of science: improve) but unless that fact that disproved evolution and abiogenesis happened to strongly support creationism…the idea would still be rejected.

    There is no scientific proof for it.

    I have read a lot of so-called articles proving a young Earth (Even had a kid say that he made a fossil on dA and that he got a scientist at a museum to check it for him…even though said man’s field was not geology or paleontology whatsoever…) and yet…strangely those finds have never broken through.

    It isn’t the media…I assure you that if a fact was found, all the creationist celebs like Pat whatshisface would be jumping up and down and drooling at the cameras at it.

    They never disproved (or proved) anything. They almost never even know the basics of the field that they claim to specialize in.

    If any real proof was found, it would be blasted everywhere and EVERYONE would know and want to know that evolution was wrong and creationism was right. But no…the only people who even bother with those kinds of articles are people already biased towards that particular view…or people like me who are the opposite and were directed there by a smart-ass who thought that he could actually prove a point with a single article. (Which never saw peer-review, never did a follow-up study, never held the attention of any other scientists other than the creationists, and is never backed by previously held knowledge, never sites sources, and overall cannot be upheld by the scientific method)

    This is like a college student who wrote an incredibly shoddy thesis trying to build it up with randomly plucked words from his desktop thesaurus so that it looks good.

    To those who don’t know shit about writing (or reading if they cannot spot it for themselves) this makes the writer look like they are intelligent…that they are smart and know what they are talking about…after all they use big words!

    But the writing behind those words is crap and the words themselves look so out of place that it shocks anyone who does know right out of the paper because they KNOW that it’s crap…and everyone else is buying it.

    A more illustrated example would be like comparing this book. (Read the snippet…it will make your eyeballs bleed out of your sockets) and something more refined like…hmmm LoTRs perhaps?

    Unfortunately for me (Grammar-Nazi), the articles like the thesis, are usually horrible typed as well…the Internet, while being a wonderful tool, allows people to get away with chat-speak, bad punctuation, and misspellings (At least they had to try with the type-writer ;P)

    I’ll tell you one thing, scientists always edit their papers because no one wants to have hundreds of others find easily missed mistakes in an article that could potentially revolutionize the entire field. It’s sloppy and it doesn’t make for a good first impression (And every time you introduce a theory, no matter how many other theories you’d created and proven, you get a first impression for each and every one…your reputation is always on the line. However, most consider it a good risk to take in the name of science)

    (Sighs) Ok…sorry if I seemed a bit grumpy in this, but I was kinda surprised by both of your replies to Parrot and Ron after all the articles and countless sites that linked you to real studies.

    That and I just spent the last two hours plunging a toilet…

  18. Amy Says:

    Bunkie-I wasn’t at all crying to you. I was giving you another example of a blanket statement. I understand evolutionary theory and I understand that they were trying to “educate” me. I just SIMPLY don’t agree with them.

    This is a quote from a rebuttle on the TOA site. “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrationg evolution to be more that an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific bias.” T. Wallace

    Too bad? My loss? There is “nothing” to lose. We live and then we die, right?

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The truth is, the site flatly misquotes the Bible…

    Which one? There are thousands of translations. He was using a different one you were. And what relevance does a skeptic’s profession in botany have to do with anything? I’m a network engineer and I argue out of my field every day. lol. So do you!!!!!

  20. Parrotlover77 Says:

    It is interesting to me that to have a naturalist point of view you have to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciosness produces conciousness and non-reason produces reason, but you have a hard time believing an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God could fit all the animals needed into the ark.

    You know, Amy, I really do like you because you certainly come up with more creative arguments than most fundies. But I have already explained my beliefs in fairly good detail and I never said most of what you said above. About the only thing I believe is that out of non-life (so-called biological building blocks) came life. How? I don’t yet know and, quite frankly, don’t really care that much. I read about new scientific discoveries in various fields every day (hobby of mine) and I can’t imagine that someday we will NOT know how it was done.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    thx,Amy.
    I recall reading that the atmosphere would be far too dense if earth were really more than a few thousand yrs old.

    No. The magentic field surrounding the earth due to the earth’s core deflects much of the solar wind (and is also the reason for the northern/southern lights) which prevents the atmosphere from disappearing within that time frame. Mars, on the other hand, has a very weak magentic field and, as a result, has lost most of its atmosphere.

    To the evolutionists..I was thinking about the rods and cones in our eyes…they are for seeing color.They were designed that way. And earth is colorful,no doubt..so which came first,the color ..or the rods and cones?

    That’s a really strange argument. I haven’t heard that one before. It may surprise you to find out that our perception of color is infinitesimal compared to the full electromagnetic spectrum. Some animals can see well into the infrared and other well into the ultraviolet. So, “color” (as in, what an animal can see and perceive as color) is very subjective based on species. Some animals see no color.

    As for rods and cones, they differ in that one (rods) senses a broad spectrum of EM waves and reports light intensity back to the brain, producing what we perceive as a “gray-scale” image. And the other (cones), are fine tuned to a specific wave-length (red, green, or blue) and report the light intensity of only that smaller wavelength to the brain. A mixture of red, green, and blue produces all the other colors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

    So, to answer your actual question: color came first. EM waves have been radiating through the interstellar medium since shortly after the big bang. Human “visible” light since at least the first star existed.

  22. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Ron-What attempts have I rejected? I’ve gone to the sites you claim have all the answers. I don’t see the answers. I see lists of fossil names. I see statements, but no proof. I see speculation based on conjecture. I don’t reject your attempts; I reject what those sites state as absolute fact.

    And therein lies the problem. Mountains of evidence to the contrary cannot change how you interpret the world, but one mistranslated book can. There is no further way we can argue this.

  23. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I guess if I had a science education I would easily be able to see that the entire universe is the result of an accidental explosion of nothing. The design and complexity of all living systems is the result of random chance. Everything is an accident, so there’s no reason to figure anything out. Everything is futile and purpose is an imaginary concept.

    Amy you are straw-manning. That is not what any of our arguments are.

  24. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Rather than repeating my arguments ad naseum, I’ll take the simpler approach of what esdlib and Amy are doing and just say…

    I GET THE LAST WORD!!!111oneoneone!!!

    😉

    I’m spent. I’ll argue something new and answer new questions, but I’m tired of repeating myself on this thread. Time to go onto my guest column at BoF and talk about godless heathen space aliens!

  25. Ron Britton Says:

    edilsb:

    You have to have a PRECONCEIVED belief system in place to NOT think about opposing arguments. You are guilty of the same thing, in reverse, that you falsely claim Amy has done.

    You have a preconceived notion of my background. I have examined creationist claims in detail. I have given them every fair chance. In no case has a creationist ever produced anything, whether argument or data, that stood up to any thorough examination.

    There is plenty of opposing scientific data that supports a young earth and creation.

    No there isn’t. I’ve seen all the arguments. I’ve seen all of the major websites. There is no opposing scientific data, just opposing creative writing.

    Creationists have had 150 years to disprove evolution. They’ve come up with nothing. They’ve had even longer than that to prove a young Earth. They’ve come up with nothing.

    Just because you don’t happen to believe their claims doesn’t mean it’s not “reputable”.

    It has nothing to do with me. The people who count are the ones who put scientific ideas to the test every single day. The ideas that work are kept. The ideas that don’t are discarded. Your creationism doesn’t work. It was discarded long ago.

    You, Ron, are much more “brainwashed” into your beliefs than Amy is hers.

    Since when is demanding evidence for a claim “brainwashed”? Every established scientific theory has solid data behind it. I guess you mean my brain is clean. Yours is the one that needs washing. It’s filled with too much creationist garbage.

  26. Ron Britton Says:

    Amy:

    Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part.

    The only reason there’s a monopoly of scientific knowledge is because the creationists are unwilling to learn any. It’s available everywhere. I can’t help it if you stick your head in the sand.

    But they haven’t come close to demonstrationg evolution to be more that an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific bias.

    Who ever said that evolution was “ever changing”? The basics of evolution were nailed down 150 years ago. It has been fleshed out greatly since then. All theories undergo refinement. Nothing in evolutionary theory has been picked up and moved across town to a nicer apartment, like you seem to suggest. Until you understand the scientific process, you’ll never understand the conclusions. Give up on reading about evolution. Go back to remedial school and learn how science is done. Only when you complete that can we possibly have a conversation with you.

  27. Ron Britton Says:

    To quote ParrotLover:

    I’m spent. I’ll argue something new and answer new questions, but I’m tired of repeating myself on this thread.

    And that’s what has become of this thread. It has long since deviated from discussing the article it’s attached to. It’s no longer even providing a source of information to people who would like to learn more about evolution. It’s just a place for creationists to whine about their beliefs not being supported by evidence. The thread is now closed.