College Requirement: Four Years of Darwinism

Creationism will infect all subjects

My inbox has been graced with a special message from Gary North. North is a nut-job fundie with a PhD from a legitimate school (UC Riverside), which proves that you can misuse a real education as easily as a fake one. North’s degree is in economic history, which (of course) qualifies him to talk about something called “Darwinism”. I’m not sure what this “Darwinism” is. I checked the course catalogs of many schools, but I couldn’t find such a subject.

North seems to be the poster child of the pro-theocracy, pro-hate pressure group American Vision. North’s email to me is titled “Special Report: The key to winning back our country”. This report can’t be that special; I was unable to find a copy of it on their web site. But don’t feel left out! I’ll reprint the best parts of his email right here, so you, too, can bathe in the glow of his wisdom.

The glowing Gary North

Gary North. Leave this picture on your screen and sit next
to your monitor, so you can bathe in his glowing wisdom.

He starts out with:

Every college student is required to take four years of Darwinism. What have you done to immunize your child?

Nothing. Religious nuts like you are opposed to immunizations.

Darwin’s book…was published in 1859.

Oh! He means Charles Darwin! What a dimwit! Schools haven’t taught “Darwinism” in over a hundred years. They do teach biology, though. This includes a much-revamped and updated theory of evolution, which is based, in part, on Darwin’s groundbreaking work.

That was the beginning. Within two decades, Darwin’s theory of evolution through random natural selection…

Wow! That economics degree sure served you well, “Dr.” North! You might want to learn a subject before forming an opinion of it. Evolution is not random! What a putz!

Documentary about Gary North

Hey! They made a movie about Gary North!

…had captured the thinking of the intellectuals of the Western world. Every academic field was rewritten in terms of Darwinism: law, history, political science, economics—all of them.

Well if that is indeed true, that is the fault of those other disciplines. You can’t directly apply a theory about the natural world to the social sciences. But I strongly suspect that Dr. North is not completely accurate here.

Most Bible-believing Christians are aware of this with respect to biology and geology. They are not aware of it in the social sciences and the humanities. Yet it is here that Darwinism rules with an iron grip.

The one who needs to get a grip is North.

Let me give an example. Anthropologists speak of primitive societies.

Uh… Not the last time I checked, they didn’t. The only people still using that term are the Christians, to justify their culture-destroying missionary work around the world.

In fact, let’s quote Wikipedia on the matter:

…describing a culture as primitive is often considered factually incorrect and offensive today.

Now let’s get back to Dr. North’s factually incorrect and offensive email:

But such societies still exist in jungle tribes. Why? Anthropologists do not point to the tribes’ rejection of biblical religion (after Noah) as the cause of their backwardness.

Considering that Noah never existed and the flood never happened, I’d say that’s a good move on their part.

They search for other explanations. They look to the tribes’ environment. This is pure Darwinism: man’s social evolution as the result of expanding population in the face of a hostile environment.

No. This is pure science. Look at the facts and see where they point. (In fact, if you’re interested in this subject, there’s a fascinating book that explores these questions: Guns, Germs, and Steel.)

Historians teach that civilization appeared first in Mesopotamia. Men learned agriculture. But didn’t Cain offer an agricultural sacrifice?

OK. Now I’m lost. I think he’s saying that those nasty historians are crediting the invention of agriculture to those offensive “primitive societies”, when everybody knows that God taught Cain how to plant crops.

Providentially, the scientific creation movement came into existence in the 1950s.…We have many books and magazines on six-day creation in the natural sciences.

We do not have even one book on creationism in the humanities and the social sciences.…We have yet to see a single textbook in history or government that is explicitly six-day creationist. [emphasis added]

You read it here first, folks! Gary North is suggesting that the radically-repressed now expand their assault on education to the social sciences! That’s one reason it was so important to stop their anti-education agenda at evolution. But like an overflowing toilet, it doesn’t matter how many towels you throw down. They still overwhelm your best efforts. They’ve made it out of the bathroom now, and they’re headed for the carpet!

Creationism spreads

48 Responses to “College Requirement: Four Years of Darwinism”

  1. Sarah Says:

    Guns, Germs, and Steel: Epic win.

    North:…science doesn’t gave a flying fuck about your opinion. Science is based on these things called FACTS and opinions are only biased unproven beliefs that we cling to based on our environment and upbringing. FACTS defined by”a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true” “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed” “a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred” or my personal fav: “a concept whose truth can be proved”

    Opinions cannot be proven, therefore, are not science. Nice try, but based on your obvious lack of attempt at research, I can’t even give you a ‘D’ for effort.

    Then again, you can’t spell ‘F-a-i-t-h’ without an F ;P

  2. Barbara Says:

    Science is also based on things called theory and research, which is what makes science provable and, well, interesting. Unlike the bible and North’s belief system which can’t be proven through testing and research and remains, well, boring.

    You can’t spell fundie without F U.

  3. Lindsay Says:

    We do not have even one book on creationism in the humanities and the social sciences.…We have yet to see a single textbook in history or government that is explicitly six-day creationist.

    Oh gee I wonder why? Perhaps it is because the bible is not science?

    I’ve read parts of the bible…ok the illustrated children’s bible because the regular one was boring to me…and yes there are some good stories and at times some interesting lessons to be learned. But how can any reasonable human being believe that females were made from the rib of a male, or talking snakes…or chunks of bread falling from the sky for a few decades or a woman getting turned into a pillar of salt.

    I also read Grimms fairy tales too and they were great stories…but I don’t buy into a chic locked into a tower spinning straw into gold or a pumpkin turning into a carriage. So what makes fundies think that one set of fairy tales is true and another set isn’t?

    It’s early and I’m not sure if I’m making any sense…much less making a good argument right now.

  4. Warren Says:

    But such societies still exist in jungle tribes. Why? Anthropologists do not point to the tribes’ rejection of biblical religion (after Noah) as the cause of their backwardness.

    This makes so little sense to me that I can’t even fathom how one could hold this viewpoint. How does it make any sense at all to not study a “primitive” society, to spend no time learning their culture, to just point at them and say:

    “Lookit ma, they live in huts that must mean they rejected the bible way back when!”

    “Good work junior. Case closed on another cultural study.”

    This doesn’t even come close to being science. At best it’s a broad assumption based on a predetermined “fact”. What’s more it can’t even be applied broadly, because if all people who rejected the bible ended up being “backwards” how could the fundies explain Asian societies? Did they trick god by pretending to believe in the bible just long enough to get the down low on how to advance culturally and technologically? I mean it makes absolutely no sense.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here but seriously stuff like this makes my brain hurt.

  5. Mike Says:

    I liked the article, but I have to nitpick a little: isn’t there some evidence that a flood of some type did, in fact, occur? Obviously the “two of every animal” thing is horseshit, but I thought the current thinking was that there had been a cataclysmic flood at a very early point in human/pre-human history and that was why similar flood stories exist in most cultures.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Mike – Short answer: no.

    Long answer: There are floods every year in many parts of the world. One of those floods was turned into a fable by an ancient culture. If I remember correctly, the biblical flood story was borrowed at least partially from the epic of Gilgamesh.

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is consensus about a single flood event being the root of parallel flood stories because of shared experience. More likely, one story was initially created from a single flood event (or just made up as fun fiction with no root in reality at all), but then that story spread to other cultures through trading — not because they all shared a flood experience in their history.

  7. Mike Says:


  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    On the subject of creationists expanding the definition of evolution (and the made-up word of “Darwinism”) to every branch of science that exists, I present the following Chick Tract. Don’t forget to take some advil ahead of time…

    You know, for the public school system and colleges being so infested with “Darwinism” I find it odd that I have never heard of this particular definition of Evolution before. I guess I must have slept through that part. At least now I know why Ben Stein was complaining that evolution doesn’t explain why planets form when he was being interviewed for Expelled.

    My favorite part of that comic: that the gluon (which has not been directly observed) doesn’t actually exist and God is actually responsible for the strong nuclear force, holding together every atom with his tiny hands and tiny feet. That has to be the most amusing God Of The Gaps argument I have ever seen. ZOMG! LIKE PARTICLES REPEL! HEREGO, GODDIDIT!

    What happens if we actually observe a gluon in the Large Hadron Collider?

    For those afraid that reading a Chick Tract might lead to cancer, here’s Chick’s misconception of what we (seculars) are teaching / being taught in school about evolution…

    1. Cosmic Evolution – Big Bang makes hydrogen
    2. Chemical Evolution – Higher elements evolve
    3. Evolution of stars and planets from gas
    4. Organic Evolution – Life from rocks
    5. Macro-evolution – Changes between kinds of plants and animals
    6. Micro-evolution – Changes within kinds

    (According to Chick: Only #6 is true! SCIENCE PWNED! SCIENCE FAIL! GODDIDIT!)

  9. Sue Blue Says:

    I’ve always wondered why the authors of the bible didn’t pick a more impressive natural disaster than a flood. Why not an event that really could have wiped out most of the life on earth – like a huge supervolcanic eruption or an asteroid impact or a major ice age – all events that really have happened since modern humans have existed. Floods are no big deal when considered on a geologic scale; they happen all the time, and while they can really be devastating, they are certainly not in the same league as the disasters which really did cause major extinctions in earth’s history.

    I think a flood was used because, to these primitive people who never traveled far, who had never seen a glacier or experienced a volcanic eruption in their short lives and who had no clue that rocks or ice could fall from space, a flood was the worst thing they could envision. If the bible really was authored by an all-knowing God, the proof would be in writing about an event no primitive could have possibly envisioned.

  10. Sue Blue Says:

    On a related note, my fundie mom keeps sending me her church magazine, which I do actually read. One of the recent articles concerned kids from a local church academy who went on a geology field trip to eastern Washington to check out the site of the massive Lake Missoula flood that happened during the last ice age. This was an event caused by the Columbia ice sheet blocking the outlet of the Clark Fork river in Montana. The water backed up and formed a huge lake near modern-day Missoula. When the ice dam floated, it broke and all of the lake waters spilled out through a canyon in Idaho and gouged out the “scablands” in eastern Washington. These kids are being taught that this huge flood is proof of the Biblical flood. Yeah, even though it was obviously a local (though impressively large) event. And all the while, they ignore the massively overwhelming evidence of the ice that caused it. Talk about denial. I could just cry for the ignorance being forced on those kids.

  11. Jeremy White Says:

    It’s amazing how ignorant some apparently educated people can be. It shows the power of brainwashing indoctrination.

    Honestly, I don’t believe thinking logically is necessarily the default natural state of the human mind. We evolved in order to survive in a dangerous world, not in order to figure out life’s mysteries.

    However I DO expect an educated person to have learned how to think things through logically. He probably does think logically for the most part, but his indoctrination trumps that thinking when it comes to anything that could concern the bible.

  12. Jeremy White Says:

    Parrot, I love that one of the tract’s references is a Kent Hovind video.

    And my oh my, how vicious that professor was!
    But not that kind-hearted fundie!

    Chick’s Fundie kid paraphrased:

    Professor, let me show you some things that do NOT support evolution. …See? Since these particular examples I’m showing you don’t PROVE evolution, then we MUST assume that Christianity is true!

    Evidently, providing false evidence of evolution and then explaining why it isn’t good evidence will not only prove evolution to be false, but it also proves that Islam and every other religion are also false (as the professor and all the students realize, thus accepting Christianity in the end).

  13. Lindsay Says:

    As much as I can’t stand the holier-than-though message of the Chick tracts, I’ve always had a soft spot for the artwork.

    I particulary like the drawing of Big Daddy Gorilla munching on a banana…hmm…it seems as if I’ve seen that depiction somewhere on this website in the past few weeks :-p

  14. Andrew N.P. Says:

    Good God — figuratively speaking. Gary, sweetie, stick to economics. One quibble, though:

    You can’t directly apply a theory about the natural world to the social sciences.

    Not directly, perhaps, but it can be done. Evolution is more than bacteria turning into radioactive monkeys with wings. It’s an abstract mechanism, an algorithm that combines random variation and non-random selection to create potentially limitless optimized solutions to a given problem. (And if no “problem” is defined, survival itself is the measure of success.) So in any field where those two things, variation and selection, appear, you’ll have evolution. Biology, sociology, economics, even game strategies.

    (In fact, as a computer science guy, this is my major beef with the ID crowd. They reject the power of this algorithm to do what it does. So unlike typical woo-ninites, they’re not just scientifically or historically wrong. They’re mathematically wrong. They’re (in theory, at least) provably wrong.)

    We do not have even one book on creationism in the humanities and the social sciences.…We have yet to see a single textbook in history or government that is explicitly six-day creationist.

    How would that work, exactly? “Shortly after the Flood, the Egyptians, Chinese, and Indians migrated to their respective lands. Once there, they harnessed the power of Satan to send artifacts back in time, to before even the Creation, in order to deceive the scientists of their future — our present — into rejecting Christ.”

    Also, I want a Satan-powered car. Just saying.


    Ergo. Ergo, dammit. It’s Latin. It means “therefore.”

    Parrot, I love that one of the tract’s references is a Kent Hovind video.

    Actually, all of the tract’s references are to either the Bible or Kent Hovind. Two of the most reputable sources known to man.

  15. Ron Britton Says:


    Not directly, perhaps, but it can be done.

    I wasn’t saying that those other things don’t evolve, just that you can’t simplisticly try to paste what we know of how species evolve on top of another discipline and expect it to work. That’s how we ended up with social Darwinism, which was just a fabrication by those in power to justify their exploitation of the oppressed.

  16. Spamamander Says:

    Oh lovely Sue Blue… I knew they attempted to use the Grand Canyon to promote the utter bullshit that is “evidence of the Noahic flood” but I hadn’t realized they were using the volcanic and glacial activity here in WA to bolster their idiocy. I’ve lived here pretty much all of my life and I am still amazed by the amount of geologic activity that occurred here, especially in the area of the Ginkgo Petrified Forest on the Columbia Gorge.

    (For anyone interested, there is a good layman’s overview of the process at

    Now off to find the Advil after Mr. North’s inanity.

  17. Barbara Says:

    There’s also the Black Sea flood theory. The two geologists involved believe that the survivors of that flood passed down the story and it evolved into various flood legends, including Utnapishtim and Noah.

    Maybe Catholics have a more cynical view of the bible or I just had some quirky teachers but I was told by a couple of nuns to assume that most of the stories were rooted in fact but made grander to teach a story. For example, the lesson of the story of loaves and fishes was about sharing with others, and now we have canned food drives to do the same thing. Our one can of green beans can feed a room full of people, if we all donate one small can of green beans.

  18. Rogi Says:

    Why do you keep on doing this to me. First Ray Comfort’s blog, and now this tract. I am well aware of fundidiocy, but I don’t need such radical examples of it, bound to cause PTSD in a being of normal sensibilities.

    What I don’t understand is why they even bother trying to give their propaganda statements a guise of legitimacy. If you’re being this ridiculous just go all out. Don’t stop at saying that nearly all experts agree that Lucy was a gorilla; say ALL experts agree on that. Stop giving Darwinists (i think they should redefine the term into something like Disciples fo Darwin the Idolater) any ground on micro-evolution. Explain it as an illusion of something changing when in fact god is merely recreating something to look different. When you’re this bat shit crazy don’t let the modicum of reality slow you down.

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    …or an asteroid impact or a major ice age

    Didn’t one of the gnostic texts say that falling stars were stars that basically didn’t obey God’s commands of movement in the heavens or some such? Of course even fundies don’t believe that any more, but like Rogi said, WHY STOP THERE?! Go all out! Join the flat earthers!

  20. Rogi Says:

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother anymore. It would be so much easier to capitalize on such stupidity, become a religious (read cult) leader and make money (after all I know all their tricks, and being an attorney gives me an impeccable command of the English language and feigned charisma). Oh, right, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself. It’s that whole morality, which I lack on account of not being a religious nut, that prevents me from trying to take advantage of those less fortunate and more gullible than myself.

  21. Andrew N.P. Says:

    I wasn’t saying that those other things don’t evolve, just that you can’t simplistically try to paste what we know of how species evolve on top of another discipline and expect it to work.

    Of course not. And I know that’s what you meant; it’s just that the wording seemed a bit off. What can I say? I’m a nit-picker.

    Didn’t one of the gnostic texts say that falling stars were stars that basically didn’t obey God’s commands of movement in the heavens or some such?

    Ayup. First Book of Enoch. Considered by the apostles to be inspired scripture, though you’ll never get modern Christians to admit it. Probably because it makes the Bible’s flat-earth cosmology impossible to deny:

  22. Sue Blue Says:

    Noah’s flood, falling stars as angels, Joshua making the sun and moon stand still at the battle of Jericho…and nowhere a single story line that the Brothers Grimm couldn’t have come up with on a bad day. And yet, picking through this literary dumpster, the fundies somehow decided that the Flood is the most believable myth (right up there with the six-day creation crap). You almost never hear them expounding on those other ridiculous stories, unless it’s to excuse them as just “parables” or analogies of some sort. And they always look embarrassed, as well they should.

    A glacier could grind its way right over a group of creationist, Flood-drunk fundies looking at water-carved rock, and they’d look up and say, “Ice? What ice? There’s no ice in the Bible…aaaaahhhhhh!!”

  23. Lindsay Says:

    Sue Blue – I wonder how many of those kids from your ma’s church buy into their flood theory? A lot of kids do get caught in the net but I think there is still a good number who don’t quite buy it. These kids have some degree of exposure to the outside world (unless they are perhaps fundie mormons?) so I would imagine a few would question the validity of their church’s “scientific proof.”

  24. Sue Blue Says:

    Lindsay – the trouble is that the church isn’t presenting the Flood myth as an amusing children’s story on a felt board. They take these high-school kids, who have been primed with anti-evolution rhetoric since birth, out to sites of geologic interest and ply them with a bunch of sciencey-sounding stuff like “sedimentation rates” and “particle sorting” and all sorts of fluff, then tie it in with “this is the same kind of thing we see in places covered with water today. So – this proves that the whole world was covered with water, just as it says in Genesis.” They don’t go into the difficulties of where all the water came from or where it went, or how Noah got all the animals (from all over the world! Did kangaroos fly Qantas to Mesopotamia?) into the ark, or how he fed and cleaned up after them, or how the few species he might have crammed into a wooden tub might have differentiated into all the millions of species that exist today.

  25. Sue Blue Says:

    And, sadly, most of the kids just nod and say, “that’s cool.” Most have never been taught critical thinking skills or logic, and even if they do question it, they are usually satisfied with whatever technical-sounding explanation their teacher spits out. Questions of the “wrong” sort are not encouraged.

  26. Lindsay Says:


    It’s just very interesting…I just have a hard time understanding sometimes because I don’t come from a background where the bible is taken literally. I just mentioned that I think there could be some that don’t buy it b/c it seems that some of the regulars on this blog grew up in a fundementalist enviroment. Me wondering if they all bought into Noah’s flood was more of a rhetorical question…I just find it hard that living in this century that it is that easy for people to still buy into biblical mythology.

  27. Andrew N.P. Says:

    They don’t go into the difficulties of where all the water came from or where it went, or how Noah got all the animals (from all over the world! Did kangaroos fly Qantas to Mesopotamia?) into the ark, or how he fed and cleaned up after them, or how the few species he might have crammed into a wooden tub might have differentiated into all the millions of species that exist today.

    On that note, there’s a (relatively) recent AiG article I found particularly mind-blowing: Lucy Was Buried First. It’s all about apes, humans, and the Tower of Babel, but the part I wish to draw your attention to is toward the beginning. Quoth Kurt Wise, Ph.D.:

    Dotted around the world, sitting on top of rocks we think date from the end of the Flood, are piles of sediment thousands of feet thick. We deduce, then, that these are post-Flood sediments, leaving a record of conditions on the earth for the centuries immediately following the Flood.

    The nature and thickness of the sediment suggests that centuries of catastrophes continued to occur while the unstable earth was recovering from the violence of the Flood. Some of these catastrophes, such as supervolcanoes, created excellent conditions for preserving fossils. These fossils show animals appearing on each continent—and being buried in local catastrophes—long before humans are found on that same continent. (Emphasis added.)

    Okay, so not only is the world scrubbed of all life by a year-long Flood, but now they’re assuming that for several centuries afterward the earth was a hotbed of catastrophic seismic and volcanic activity. Yet somehow life survived; somehow we survived.

    This may explain why fundies aren’t too worried about global warming or nucular war. If hundreds of years of God’s wrath can’t kill us, nothing can.

  28. Sue Blue Says:

    Hmm. Funny, Genesis never mentions any supervolcanic eruptions. You’d think an almighty God would have clued the authors of the Bible in on that one. I love it when these creationists try to fit geology and evolution into their scheme. They wind themselves into knots like Gumby playing Twister trying to fit the plain facts in with their Bronze Age worldview.

    It’s really hard to get how pervasive this worldview is unless you’ve been raised in it. There isn’t a single aspect of biology, geology or astronomy that they haven’t tried to parse from the garbled mythology of the bible.

  29. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I wasn’t raised fundie, I was raise Methodist, but at Sunday School when I’d ask tough questions like “how did God create the world in seven days if it’s billions of years old” you should know that they have answers – oh do they have answers. Critical thinking is not encouraged, but those who think critically are, indeed, given answers. It may be complete and utter BS, but it’s an answer. The answer to my above question? They invoked the theory of relativity. Seven “days” during that time were from a different frame of reference (near the speed of light, I presume?)… Anyway, don’t brush them off as stupid. The fundies are not as stupid as we make fun of them. It takes a kind of intelligence to twist facts and evidence into the knots needed to match the accounts of the bible with real science. Are they intelligent? Heavens, no. But they are not as stupid as you might think. There is a reason why they are able to convince millions that their form of BS is more truthy than the competing religions and, well, truth itself.

  30. cipher Says:

    Honestly, I don’t believe thinking logically is necessarily the default natural state of the human mind. We evolved in order to survive in a dangerous world, not in order to figure out life’s mysteries.

    Stephen Jay Gould suggested years ago that among early hominids, natural selection favored the ability to focus on one limited set of visual or auditory stimuli, to the exclusion of all others. One had to be able to concentrate on spotting looming predators, and anything else was a distraction. The ability to see “holistically”, to perceive the whole picture, wasn’t an advantage.

  31. Jeremy White Says:


    It seems like a good possibility to me.
    Richard Dawkins has a chapter in The God Delusion regarding reasons why people are predisposed to believe in God — there’s some compelling arguments in there too.

    People have evidently overcome those natural inclinations that support a belief in a god. I’m still amused (and saddened) that some people can become educated and still not apply logic and reasoning to their religious beliefs. The media, political campaigns, government, etc… all do their part in the use appeals of emotion, appeal of fear, wishful thinking, appeal of authority, etc… to perpetuate illogical thinking.

    After you get over the hurdle of realizing, “Hey, just because it feels good to believe something doesn’t mean I’m right!”, it becomes hard to believe that you were ever so stupid. And it’s a hard hurdle for many people to jump. It’s not only a change of thinking, but admitting neither heaven nor morals are real is uncomfortable until you accept that you can finding meaning in your own life without your life having a “purpose” and you can still behave morally without the fear of going to hell. (btw, how does christianity make people behave morally? if they accept jesus, regardless of how they lived, they’ll go to heaven. can’t they be as immoral as they want?)

  32. Sue Blue Says:

    Jeremy – your whole comment is right on. One of the aspects of so-called christian “morality” that really appalls me is the idea that an outside supernatural being had to give humans their sense of right and wrong, and that fear of punishment by that being is what keeps people on the straight and narrow. Without the idea that some sky-daddy is constantly looking over their shoulder, they would just be unable to keep from cheating, stealing, raping and murdering. They really believe this. They have no personal responsibility for their actions other than “faith” that God will overcome their inherent “evil”. And then they think that, no matter how badly they have behaved, “repenting” to their sky-daddy makes everything all right – so they never really have to pay for fucking over anyone else.

  33. Thanamine Says:

    Faith is not blind devotion even when what people believe in seems to be farfetched or capable of being scientifically disproven. I believe in creation and there’s no reason for me to believe that God didn’t start things off with a big bang of light. The theory of evolution and creation must both rely on a power supply that never had a beginning due to the simple proccess of elimination. Something can not be created by nothing and since all evidence points to this universe counting as “something” then the point of origin does not coincide with our most easily proven “fact”.
    The world being formed in a short or long time is a moot point as scientifically there really is no “reason” for anything to exist at all. (Nothing + Nothing = Nothing for an infinite amount of time) seems like sound science to me but we have quite a bit of evidence supporting the existence of “things” which can’t possibly come from nothing. My belief is that ( God = Everything ) and the proof that I have based that belief on is the existence of “Any things”. Though my personal faith is in the Bible that does not mean that I believe a person needs to do anything more than seek God to find him no matter what their religous background is. I also believe that we all are aware of God, have some sort of relationship with him, and know whether it’s a good one or a bad one.

    Those who convince themselves of the non-existence of God are usually just disgusted at how intolerant some humans are and proclaim their gods to be. Especially my fellow christians

  34. J.R. "Bob" Dobbs Says:

    Aw shit, another drive by poster.

    Perhaps proven science is a good reason to not believe.
    [Nothing+nothing=Nothing]≠Science and accepted fact

  35. Parrotlover77 Says:

    …but about as little respect for ‘higher education’ in modern America

    You showed your hand.

  36. Jeff Says:

    He is also a radical Calvinist, and wants to have private communities based on strict Biblical law. He wants to have private schools based on the same principles.

    But calling him a ‘theocrat’ or associating him with ‘hate pressure groups’ demonstrates your ignorance

    Seriously? This actually made sense to you as you typed it?

  37. Ron Britton Says:


    …given that Creationists have no power in realm of public policy…

    Seriously? Are you that out of touch? Evolution is barely taught in the schools, and when it is, it is shoved off in a corner and not given the coverage it warrants, given that it is the underpinning of all of biology. Most Americans don’t believe in evolution. Creationists are in Congress. Our last president was a creationist.

    …the world has been shifting away from Creationism for 150 years now…

    The world has, but not the United States.

  38. Parrotlover77 Says:

    And when was the last time public policy was dictated by Creationism?

    I’m sure others will have better examples directly relating to Creationism (other than the obvious fact that school boards are setting a lot of policies about theories being theories and ZOMG LOOK OVER THERE), but fundie policies have been pretty devastating.

    G.W. saw himself as a holy warrior doing God’s work in the middle east. You can see how well that’s turned out.

    Gay marriage is still mostly illegal.

    Churches get ridiculous tax breaks.

    Abortion, although legal, is pretty damn tough to get done in this country.

    A community center being built by a smaller, but pretty popular, religion is pretty damn close to not going to happen because fundies’ racist feeling are hurt by their existence.

    Oh. Also, too, HITLER!!11!!!!

    Local decisions in Alabama don’t affect California, but the trend is for pro-Darwin folks to alter local policy in Alabama.

    Yes. Because we don’t want kids to be indoctrinated into a cult of ignorance, no matter what state they live in. I take it from your tone that you are very much a States’ Rights dude — the more local, the better? I’m not going to argue for or against that in general as I do see merits in both in different situations, but I’m definitely pro-federal and pro-secular when it comes to setting minimum education standards.

    …you’d agree that Obama believing that a bearded man rose from the dead 2000 years ago still makes America “Christian”.


    If you voted for him then that makes you a supporter of this myth, by your logic that is.

    Not speaking for Ron, but I don’t care what superstitions my elected officials believe in, as long as it does not negatively affect their governance. Further, I don’t vote for somebody because I 100% agree with them on everything. The alternative, Old Man McCain, was a lot more frightening. Your strawman is weak here.

    My guess is you’re probably non-religious (or atheist) and voted for Obama because he’s both a secularist and Progressive, and you’re willing to let his outdated beliefs slide as long as he puts the peasants in their places by outlawing Creationism in public schools everywhere. Am I close?

    You do understand that when you assert your thesis to an argument, your evidence should at least try to support it, right?

    Obama is not a “secular” in the sense you are using. He’s certainly governing from a more secular perspective compared to Republican alternatives. But, for the love of Buddha (the fat laughing one, not the skinny ones), he ends every single press conference with “…and god bless the USA.” He’s for faith-based initiatives. He has stated on numerous occasions, that he believes in the power of prayer. He is not “a secularist.”

    Peasants in their place? What does that even mean in this context?

    As for outlawing creationism in public schools. Wow, would be pretty awesome if it were — wait a minute. Didn’t that happen like 60 years ago?

    I thought we were fighting to prevent it from reappearing, while also defending the scientific method, sound scientific theories like evolution and gravity, and the rights of science teachers to teach science.

    Crazy, I know!!! I’m just a regular Taliban member!

    Eric Jacobus – I don’t get what you are arguing. You seem to sound like you are saying that the cause of science is won and is settled, with no serious opposition existing. Sometimes it sounds like you think we are dumb for worrying about creationist resurgence. Sometimes it sounds like you want creationist resurgence.

    *sniff sniff* I smell concern troll.

  39. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Fundamentalist policies? Like what? Bush may have thought himself God’s warrior, but you don’t really believe that the military did it for religious reasons, do you? Because then you can’t hold the belief that it was for Haliburton and oil.

    Yes, because it is impossible for different interests who want the same outcome to have different motivations.

    …gay marriage is easier now than it ever was

    I suppose those uppity blacks should have been satisfied in the 60s because life for them was “easier now than it ever was.”

    But even today after 250 years of Progress some people in America still aren’t Progressive enough…

    It’s pretty amazing that what was acceptible 250 years ago isn’t today. Why, just the other day, I was lamenting on the fact that the damn gubment forces me to have functional plumbing in my house. If I want to poop on the street, then by god, I should be able to poop on the street! It was good enough 250 years ago and it’s good enough now!

    They vote badly because they’re badly educated, and you support the civil service and NGOs that perform the right education function.

    Private organizations can teach whatever they want to consenting adults. However, it is child abuse to teach kids things that are factually provably wrong. I’m not talking about spirit/souls/prayer or whatever other silly mythology they want to peddle. I’m talking about things that cut against sound, provable, indisputable science. Any school that teaches the earth is 6000 years old — gone. Shut down. Done. The kids deserve better. Parents are abusing their kids with nonsense like that.

    Also, too, federal standards would (and do) ensure that education is standardized so that going to one school does not greatly disadvantage a child from entering another school or college.

    Who’s to blame for the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona?

    Mostly racist assholes. But conservative politicians were/are fanning the flames for their own political advantage.

    Who’s to blame for the passage of Prop 8 in California?

    Mostly bigoted assholes. But the funny thing is that, this again, was an issue of education. All recent polls show much stronger support for gay marraige. The reason the vote happened the way it did was because of all the fear mongering from conservative organizations. ZOMG A STORM IS COMING! THEY WANT TO TURN MY KIDS GAY IN THE SCHOOLS AND EAT HIM!

    Sad Proggies don’t understand libertarian anarchism.

    I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

    Gary North would…

    Bullshit. If that were the case, Where is his floating paradise?

    Why are he and you trying to change a system of governance where most people are generally satisfied overall with the system? That seems counter to your arguments.

  40. Ron Britton Says:

    I work at full-time, and seasteading has no intention of changing the American political system, but rather simply leaving it.

    High Macha Of Rashpur: Good afternoon. I am the Grand Exalted High Macha of Rashpur, a nonexistent but real-sounding country.

    Phil Moscowitz: Uh-huh.

    High Macha Of Rashpur: Yes. We’re on a waiting list. As soon as there’s an opening on the map, we’re next.

  41. Pete Moulton Says:

    Sue Blue @ 9: “I’ve always wondered why the authors of the bible didn’t pick a more impressive natural disaster than a flood.”

    Well, Sue, there was already a ready-made cataclysm story that they could steal, so why bother? As Parrotlover 77 noted, the original flood myth dates back at least to the Epic of Gilgamesh; and since the EoG is a fully mature story, the various components probably date back even much further. Noah, my ass! The fundies should all be talking about ol’ Ut-Napishtim.

  42. Ron Britton Says:

    I just banned Srubna, viva_la_insurrection, and Eric Jacobus, and deleted all their comments. As I mention in my comment policy, I really don’t care if you disagree with me. All I ask is that you contribute to the conversation. All three of those commenters had devolved to empty profanity or trollish baiting.

    I’m working 60 hours a week right now. I don’t have the patience to babysit a borderline commenter and try to reign them in. Nor can I afford to waste my time intellectually wiping them on the pavement like I do with the other mental midgets who drop in from time to time.

    It’s 3:30 AM. I haven’t slept in 20 hours, because I’m now too tired to do so (no, I don’t know how that works, but that’s what happens). When I’m in a better humor, I enjoy smacking them around. Right now, I’m just flushing them down the toilet like the excrement they are.

    Be civil. Contribute to the conversation. Disagree all you want, but do so with proof and/or logic.

  43. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Sometimes I wish you’d leave up the older posts so I can laugh at them at a later date and it doesn’t look like we’re just arguing with imaginary trolls. 😉

  44. Ron Britton Says:


    I usually do leave them up. I just don’t have time to deal with the problem right now, so the cleanest approach was to nuke everything.

    I haven’t actually deleted the messages yet. I might restore some or all of them, even if the ban remains in place.

  45. sue blue Says:

    Pete: I agree! I’ve always thought that the provincial, local nature of all the biblical stories was proof that they were made up. Not only were all the stories plagiarized from earlier myths, nowhere in the bible is there any mention of anything that could not have been seen in their local environment, such as snowy winters, glaciers or kangaroos. There are no descriptions of truly distant lands with different climates or people such as the Chinese, who had a huge empire at the time. It’s so easy to tell from reading the Bible that these people didn’t get out much, in spite of their tales of journeying and conquering in the name of God. IF there was some mention in the bible of things that middle eastern goatherders could not possibly have known about, that would be proof to me that maybe there was some supernatural inspiration there. But…nope!

  46. Parrotlover77 Says:

    It’s so easy to tell from reading the Bible that these people didn’t get out much…

    Not a whole lot different from teary “I want my country back” inbred white people from the back woods who can’t handle somebody with a surplus of melanin being the President of the United States.

    Because, remember, Jesus was white.

  47. Jeff Says:

    Because, remember, Jesus was white.

    And he spoke Jamesian English. Don’t forget that part.

  48. sue blue Says:

    Yeah, I remember from my childhood the painting of Jesus in the sanctuary that pictured him clean-shaven, with light brown hair, distinctly European features, and hazel eyes. A swarthy Savior? Horrors! Also, I remember some bible verses where racism is explicit even amongst the closely-related tribes of the area, such as the references to the dark-skinned Midianites. The implication was that their dark skin was somehow associated with being idolatrous and evil. These are probably very popular verses with the fundies today – “Obama is a MIDIANITE!!!” – in addition to being a Muslim, a Socialist, a Marxist, a Leftist, a Commie, and of course, Not American.

    I also think that the slack-jawed Jesus-lovers get the idea that America is a Christian Nation from the biblical tale of God “giving” Palestine (Canaan)to the Hebrews. Throughout history, Christians of all stripes have apparently believed that all kinds of nasty land-grabs, atrocities and genocide are justified by the line “God gave it to us”.