If you follow thought all the links it is apparent that this site is quite real. But these people have no idea just how much of an unintentional parody they are. Visit the on line Christian gift shop where you can buy the Zounds Abstinence Shorts for only $13.50 or the Ruby Matrimony Thong for $8.50.
You're reminding me of an old joke:
Why did God create woman?
Because sheep don't do windows.
Acquiunk, are you serious, do you really think it is real?
Re; Landover Baptist, I showed th site a few years ago to a dyed in the wool fundy, who refused to believe it was a parody.
If it is a parody it has an incredible amount of depth and someone put a lot of effort into it. It has links that lead to other pages that have nothing to do with either the "science fair" or the church and reflects the kind of cultural confusion that is typical of the religious right wing. It looks real to me. If this is a satire it is an unusually well thought out fraud.
My bet would be that this is not parody or satire.
It is the unfortunate truth.
In a way, though, this kind of thing has a better chance of producing skeptics than it has of strengthening the ranks of the nation's sheep. I've seldom seen an endeavor that looks more susceptible to the laws of unintended consequences than this.
I think you're right, Frank.
My god. I just checked out that link. What a tradgedy! Creation science? I don't think that it is a joke, either. It saddens me that humans have such beautifully complex brains, and that some of us would choose to limit ourselves so completely!
(Assuming that my viewpoint is the correct one, which of course, I do.)
What does it tell us about our view of creationists, when we can't tell the difference between a parody of them, and their real beliefs.
Here's an interesting idea from the people of the Jesussave.us site:
http://www.objective.jesussave.us/godlyflag.html
Whew!
Makes ya wonder if these guys have any idea of what America is all about, doesn't it, Rosborne?
This is another reason why I think this site is a detailed parody. Many of the articles target non-creationist "hot buttons" a little to precisely to be accidental.
truth
Ros and Frank, that IS scary, but we must accept the fact that American values as WE understand them are part of a pluralistic society in which cultural competition is a normal aspect of our socio-political system. Frank, another possible unintended consequence of fundamentalist doctrine may lie their pseudo science. I feel that if they persist in grounding their belief system on a body of false knowledge they will eventually experience--with the inevitable progress of real science--serious empirical challenges to that grounding. I know they will challenge all sound theoretical progress because that's relatively easy to rationalize away, but it will be increasing difficult for them to accomodate their worldview into the growing body of empirical findings.
JL, it is already impossible to accomodate the creationist worldview within existing empirical findings.
But they get around this by dismissing empiricism in favor of "faith".
But JL has a point, Rosborne.
They can play that "faith" card -- and play it often. But don't for a second think that most of the people upon whom it is being played don't see it for what it is.
Some will be fooled -- but they were probably (you should excuse the expression) lost souls anyway. My guess is most are put off by the excesses -- and will bolt.
Religion has already had its heyday. It is on the downward slope -- and some of this fundamentalist desparation is evidence of that.
We'll not see the end of religion in our lifetime -- but it is already coughing and wheezing.
It would seem that the success or failure of religious fundamentalism as a competetive view with empiricle science, will depend partly on the simplicity of the various views.
We can probably expect that the simplest ideas will be more likely to take hold in a majority of the population.
This would imply that the success of science is closely linked to the success of general education.
Are our populations becoming more educated, or less?
truth
Ros, your comment that the success of Science is linked to our general level of education leads me to ask: Are you referring to the enterprise of Science, i.e., societal economic investment in basic research (as opposed to Merck's and DuPont's search for marketable discoveries) or Science as a centerpiece of our Worldview? I personally do not like to overemphasize Science as a new religion or functional equivalence of religion (ala 19th century Positivism). I think the psychological needs sometimes addressed by religion (i.e., the existential facts of life and death) are met only by personal strengths/resources (available through philosophical and/or mystical achievements) which, unfortunately, most, people will never enjoy. But I defend science as a worldview when it is challenged by the gross anti-intellectualism that would have us base our lives on infantile fairytales
JL, I was thinking more along the lines of empiricism and naturalism as a fundamental system of thought for evaluating the physical world.
Some things about science are easy to recognize. Gravity for instance, is in some ways as easy to understand as falling off a log. But in other ways as counter intuitive as aspects of genenral relativity.
In all of those areas in which science tells us something which is beyond the ability of our natural senses to detect, we must depend on our understanding of the process in order to determine the veracity of the result.
My point was not that science could, or should, replace religion, but that some level of understanding is required in order for science to be any more compelling to the mind than pure faith.
Best Regards,
sorry read the head line and lsot interest
Its quite sobering when a crowd of supposedly well educated physical scientists (many Phds in parade), accompanied by their attornies, parade into a hearing room to plead their case that alternative "theories" of life origins and "continuity" should be taught in our public schools science curricula.
Dont ever confuse them with simple minded, that they are not. They are convinced of their beliefs and are willing to go to the mat with , often, quite eloquent arguments. The undoing of which, is accomplished in grueling details of the science minutae. Many claim , like Bill Behe, that they wish nothing to do with proposing a theistic based concept of origins. They also argue what is, or is not ,"Real SCience".
Im often caught off guard trying to treat them as science colleagues, when I know theyve left their scientific detachment and supposed objectivity at the cloakroom.
In each state, most of these hearings are open and poorly attended. Its almost like an election, except here, our kids minds will be pressed by a very small percentage of the "scientific community"
In our defense, I must say that most of the"Creation" scientists are , engineers, or physical scientists, even some geologists (that one makes my brains boil over), although there are a few microbiologists and geneticists
They argue thermodynamics, codons , interons and other genic structure,they bring up sedimentology and stratification and apparent hydraulic explanations of their "deluvian" theory, geochronology and the "inherent errors" in atomic decay" clocks". Yessir, theyre anything but simple folk. Now, theyre trying to appeal to the fundamentalists non scientists and the real membership bases of their "missions", but the Creationist Reps are as good as any debators Ive seen.
One thing the Creationists understand quite well is that both sides, the science reps and the creation reps, sound equally as unintelligible to he state ed committees. Under certain states "rules of evidence" (Daubert et al vs_______) an "expert" can rely on whatever texts that are generally accepted by the expert community. Further, the courts can have their own experts on hand to explain to the court what both opposing experts just said.
With this said, Ive been sensitive as to how simply the creationist speakers try to make their arguments. As if to demonstrate that the simpler you make a complex subject sound, the more believable you are.
Meanwhile , we science types are giving credibility to the creationists by even stipulating to many of their preposterous fundamental concepts. (eg. It is a commonly known fact, from the fossils discovered in the Paluxy Formation of Texas, that men and dinosaurs walked the planet together". In order to refute that we should just state that the creationiusts "carved " a footprint into a fossil bed next to some dinosaur tracks. NOOOO, I was in a presentation wherein a paleontologist tried to explain how this was "stratigraphically inconclusive" The very use of this explanation, although correct , made the creationists sound , at least reasonable and believable. We had to undo the damage by proving that this human footprint was actually carved into the pre-existing footprint of a species of trace fossil track called a "Gralator" ( which is a name sorta menaing that "we have no idea what kind of animal made this track". Most of the time, the scientists are used to debate with colleagues wherein they shoot at each others data and conclusions. However they arent used to arguing against something akin to a "flat earth"
Ill shut up now
A Joke
Come on, that site is a JOKE!! There are numerous places where you get the sense that they are actually poking fun at creationists. I think it is rather funny...and had I thought of it, I might have made it first!!
I mean, come on "My uncle is a man named Steve, not a monkey"...and they even stated that he refused to eat bananas!!!
Its just a joke. And a rather funny one.
Greg
