Creationist Blarney

Creationists try to fill our minds with bunk; to me, they seem not unlike the Pythagoreans who doomed Greece to also ran status because they rejected pure science and replaced it with superstition, speculation, and symbolism. Once the Pythagorean symbolism replaced pure science, it was good bye to the hegemony of Greece for all time

Could this be the fate of the western world?

Will the modern day Pythagorians, “the Creationists” gain sway and lead to America’s eventual demise? Holy cow, am I really saying this? Yes, and, sadly, it’s real, it’s endemic and fifty percent of the population believe it, today, in the year 2007..

Creationists seem to have a very narrow view of tolerance, too. Creationists believe that stem cell research borders on murder. That Darwin was wrong. And that science doesn’t reflect the truth.

It’s hard to discuss things with people who are so locked into dogma of the worst kind.

If that isn’t worrisome enough, consider that there are enough people who buy into this bunk to sway an election. Consider that three men who are vying for the Republican vote claim that they already eschew Evolution. All that was missing were the clubs and the skins…

These are candidates who are purported to represent the best and the brightest of the opposition and who purportedly exhibit the kind of leading judgment that the rest of us can subscribe to.

Is it time to check the requirements for citizenship in Tegucigalpa, Tierra del Fuego and the Galapagos?

. But if that seems incomprehensible, how much more incomprehensible is the act of assuming that a man-made collection of liturgical views and history, written by dozens of scribe interpreters—from Jesus’ Apostles to paid hacks, later edited by the Council of Nicosia, who under their own assumed power dictated what they wanted us to believe about Jesus, and, in the process, rejected, per se, those codifications that didn’t satisfy this august church commission. Can such an organized attempt to explain religion serve not only as canon but also the literal world of God??? You have ten seconds to respond…

If we accept everything the new religious revisionists believe, then we might use their principles and see how they hold up. Let’s travel back into early history to what they concede is the beginning of time—around the time of the beginnings of Western Civilization, the time of Philip Macedon and later, his son, Alexander or maybe even further back to the Peloponnesian wars and Agamemnon and Helen, the face that launched a thousand ships. But if that was the beginning of time, how do we account for the fact that the heroes of the Wars had fathers and they had fathers… Were they born whole six thousand years ago and placed on their various world stages like chess pieces?
I mean God is good but is he that good?

If we accept a literal interpretation of the bible, the flood had to be more than six thousand years old and according to the scripture wasn’t Noah a thousand year’s old at the time? If we were to jetision everything that had it’s beginnings before the supposed start of the Earth, we would actually have to dispose of not only people but the dinosaurs who died 50 million years ago, evidence of the ice age that settled on the land 12,000 years ago, the land-bridge that connected Asia and the North American continent. But how do you do that when we’ve taken core sediments from the ice age and found evidence of fresh flowers before the ice age. And we would have to discount evidence of humanoid creatures some million years ago, and we would have to erase what we know about “lucy,” the missing link and homo erectus…We would have to ignore the cave drawings of our ancestors in the caves of France. And every other tidbit of evidence that establishes man in the firmament.

If this weren’t embarrassing enough, our religious zealot friends who will not even tolerate any deviation from what they already know. This would mean good-bye Earth, which we already know from analysis of geographic layers show a strip of tritium that is embedded at a layer in the rock strata that has been dated to the time the dinosaurs disappeared, some fifty million years ago and if we go even further, we would have to toss evidence of the Earth’s presence in the heavens some 4.1 billion years ago.

If we accept just the carbon dating evidence, we have to say that the Creationists were off by more than a factor of 20,000, not exactly a miniscule error on the scale of things. Well Creationists don’t seem to be exactly great mathematicians but they are great at being set in their ways and their beliefs. But Americans tend to be tolerant. We’d only wish that they’d keep their opinions to themselves and not try to convince us dinosaurs and people were good buddies. That holds up for cartoons, but the rest of the world kind of thinks we’ve lost our collective minds. Having a superpower believe in myth does not seem to encourage investments or confidence so as a practical matter, we’d better get some realists onto the republican side if they hope to be taken seriously. In the meantime, all the more argument for a democratic win!....

Les Aaron