Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False

by Henry on July 15, 2003

Ezra Klein has come across a rather wonderful site, detailing the Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair, in which kids do “science” projects to “prove” the truth of Creationism. I feel a little guilty linking to this – I’m sneering, basically – but how could you NOT sneer a little. It outdoes The Onion. I do feel a little sorry for the kids though.

Ezra quotes the most offensive science project, which seeks to show that women are designed by God for homemaking, but there’s plenty more goodness where that came from. Some personal favorites.

Update – oops. Looks like this one is a phony. It’s a pretty good one though. Guess it says something about my gullibility when it comes to extreme Bible-thumping lunacy – I have difficulty in telling the real stuff from the fake.

  • Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False (Honorable Mention, Elementary School level).
  • “My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey).”Cassidy Turnbull presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey. (Elementary School level, first Prize).
  • “Maximal Packing Of Rodentia Kinds: A Feasibility Study”
    Jason Spinter’s (grade 12) project was to show the feasibility of Noah’s Ark using a Rodentia research model (made of a mixture of hamsters and gerbils) as a representative of diluvian life forms. The Rodentia were placed in a cage with dimensions proportional to a section of the Ark. The number of Rodentia used (58) was calculated using available Creation Science research and was based on the median animal size and their volumetric distribution in the Ark. The cage was also fitted with wooden dowls inserted at regular intervals through the cage walls, forming platforms which provided support for the Rodentia. Although there was little room left in the cage, all Rodentia were able to move just enough to ward off muscle atrophy. Food pellets and water were delivered to sub-surface Rodentia via plastic drinking straws inserted into the Rodentia-mass, which also served to allow internal air flow. Once a day, the cage was sprayed with water to cleanse any built-up waste. Additionally, the cage was suspended on bungie cords to simulate the rocking motion of a ship. The study lasted 30 days and 30 nights, with all Rodentia surviving at least long enough afterwards to allow for reproduction. These findings strongly suggest that Noah’s Ark could hold and support representatives of all antediluvian animal kinds for the duration of the Flood and subsequent repopulation of the Earth (High School Level, Second Prize).

(nb the innovative use of bungie cords in the above)

  • “Thermodynamics Of Hell Fire” – Tom Williamson (High School Level, Honorable Mention).
  • “Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria”
    Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn’t. The prayer was as follows: “Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen.” The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics. High School Level, First Prize.



alkali 07.15.03 at 6:49 pm

Pretty sure you’ve been had.


Henry 07.15.03 at 6:55 pm

Ummm … have taken a closer look at the more general site, and you’re almost certainly right. Ooops. But it’s pretty damn funny all the same.


Reg 07.15.03 at 7:06 pm

I think its time to come down from the ivory tower and interact with some real folks, bud. The fact that you think this could have been real shows the disdain you hold for the intelligence of a sizable minority of people in this country. You should be ashamed of yourself.


alf 07.15.03 at 7:30 pm

I think this confirms the fact that the site is a hoax, but it’s a damn good one.

Will you be my husband thong


Henry 07.15.03 at 7:37 pm

I’m embarrassed to have been taken in, obviously, but fully reserve the right to poke fun at fringe religious beliefs, as indeed at fringe non-religious beliefs (cf. my co-blogger’s post on Brights). Religion I have no problem with whatsoever; the manifestly untrue and tendentious arguments of Bible literalist Creationism, I do. And the parody site is only very slightly over the top. I’ve read sincere efforts by Baptist ministers to use scientific measurements to prove that the Ark could hold the number of animals that it says it does. The Institution for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) is still arguing this case. I’ve also read accounts of experiments that seek to show that prayer works by measuring the rate of plant growth. As for arguments that women are ordained by God to be homemakers – they’re part of the everyday political discourse in certain parts of society. The Pokemon I’ll grant you.


ArchPundit 07.15.03 at 7:38 pm

I find that one seldoms goes wrong doubting the intelligence of creationists.


Jeremy Osner` 07.15.03 at 7:43 pm

What I thought was funniest about the site was the comments section — I had assumed right off the bat that the site was a joke, but the preponderance of letters from people outraged at the backwardsness of the people who run the site, made me do a double take, and go back to check that I was correct. I find the gullibility of these folks (and of so many!) kind of amazing — yes evangelicals hold themselves up to ridicule by espousing anti-science beliefs — but still….


Kevin Drum 07.15.03 at 7:50 pm

Don’t feel bad, Henry. I had to read this site over several times before I finally convinced myself that it was a parody. This was the line that finally convinced me:

“Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks.”

Unfortunately, these parodists are just a little too good at their job.


m@butler 07.15.03 at 7:54 pm

Reg: The fact that you think this could not have been real shows the disdain you hold for checking your facts before you flame.

Check out these real sites. Absolutely one hundred percent sincere. And other than crappier web design, I can’t see much that would differentiate them from the posted spoof. The OBJECTIVE site is suspect mainly because there are kids involved; normally, ignorance that deep takes years to develop.


erik wedin 07.15.03 at 8:14 pm

While the site may be fake (I beleive it started with OBJECTIVE: Landover Baptist Shutdown, which was also by the Landover Baptist people), the links at the bottom appear to be real, and those are scary enough.


Lydia Nickerson 07.15.03 at 8:33 pm

I was raised in a small, fundamentalist sect. (I escaped at the age of 18.) I could not tell that the site was a parody, until I came to the “matrimonial thong” in the merchandise. With just a touch more authenticity, I could even be talked into swallowing that. I didn’t review the site in careful detail, but what I saw was so subtle a parody as to not be funny, for me. It wasn’t outrageous, it was just depressingly familiar.


MadJayhawk 07.15.03 at 9:00 pm

I find that one seldoms goes wrong doubting the intelligence of creationists.

Even when it makes you look like a complete ass. It was probably a set-up used to sucker in those intellectually superior individuals who continually look down their haughty noses at other people’s belief systems while singing the praises of diversity and inclusion.

Reel ’em in Billy Bob. We got us ‘nother one. Hehe.


Chad Peterson 07.15.03 at 9:23 pm

Ezra picked out a good name for his website, ‘Not Geniuses’. I had someone fool me last week, though.


ArchPundit 07.15.03 at 10:38 pm

===Even when it makes you look like a complete ass. It was probably a set-up used to sucker in those intellectually superior individuals who continually look down their haughty noses at other people’s belief systems while singing the praises of diversity and inclusion.

A set-up? No, a satire that was a little too close to reality. Go visit http://www.drdino.com/

and then look up what Patriot University is:

That isn’t satire–which is more over the top? I can’t tell.

I don’t buy the notion that creationists are somehow equally valid in their world view when they start trying to use science to support what it does not support. The world isn’t postmodern.

Diversity and inclusion aren’t buzzwords for being so open-minded your brain falls out.


Matt Weiner 07.15.03 at 10:42 pm

until I came to the “matrimonial thong” in the merchandise. With just a touch more authenticity, I could even be talked into swallowing that.

I doubt the thong is kosher, myself.


Ezra 07.15.03 at 10:44 pm

I was surely had, but remember, jack Chick publishes his tracts in all seriousness – so for those of you who think that this was simply to ludicrous to be real, I beg to differ. I have great respect for many creationists, but I am all too aware of the leaps of faith many are willing to make, especially when they have had little contact with the sciences. If i sound elitist, I apologize, i mean merely to be a realist. Meanwhile, pat Robertson is using his national show to ask God to “retire” (sounds like a mob hit) 3 supreme court justices.


Lydia Nickerson 07.15.03 at 10:57 pm

I find that one seldoms goes wrong doubting the intelligence of creationists.

Even when it makes you look like a complete ass.

Do you know very many fundamentalists? I’ve known a fair number, indeed I’m related to entirely too many. People who believe in creation science are not by definition stupid. Some of them are almost frighteningly bright. I knew a physicist, once, who did top-notch work who was a creationist.

I have no patience with creationism, and no sympathy for the cynical proponents of same. However, I think that opposing someone effectively requires that you be able to see your enemy clearly. We intellectuals find it so entertaining to look down on those stupid, hick bible-thumpers who didn’t finish 8th grade. Although all of you know better than that (I hope), you still seem to have that attitude. Fighting smart people as if they are stupid is not a winning strategy.

What creationists have, instead of a lack of intellectual processing power, is the ability to engage in subtle self-delusion in select, narrow areas. They choose the things they will believe in, and which they will disbelieve, ignoring the links between the two and the ways in which one requires another. Of course, with something as multi-purpose as God, that’s not as hard to do as it is for people who believe in a rational world.

These are people who are capable of towering feats of logic, elegant and extensive rhetoric, elaborate explanations for extensive swaths of normality, they are capable of putting together an argument to make the most seasoned debater blanch, but they are fundamentally irrational. Therein is the problem. No rational argument can win. They are smart enough to avoid getting trapped by their own logic box, and capable of resisting all attempts to get them out into the wider world. That logic box is a security blanket, an irrational protection against the “cruelty” of the rational world.


m@butler 07.15.03 at 11:14 pm

MC Hawking minces no words about creation science. The rest of the site is pretty funny too, in a mildly offensive sort of way.

As for madjayhawk’s “diversity and inclusion” line, it is disingenuous. No one is challenging the right of creationists as individuals to hold their beliefs, any more than we challenge astrologers or UFO enthusiasts. However, creationism as a movement actively promotes a political agenda – to compromise science education – that is harmful to children and to society. And it does so in a way that is fundamentally dishonest: it presents arguments as scientifically grounded which are in fact pure theology (and rather crude, literalist theology at that). For this creationism deserves all the scorn and ridicule it gets.


Henry 07.16.03 at 2:31 am

I reckon that Lydia’s right here – just because people hold apparently irrational beliefs doesn’t mean that they can’t be deeply intelligent. But, as she also says, they’re usually smart enough not to be argued out of their beliefs either. Some parts of creationist “science” are magnificent in a skewed kind of way, constructing a very complicated quasi-scientific structure to shore up a deeply non-scientific (and in some respects anti-scientic) worldview.


MadJayhawk 07.16.03 at 6:02 am

m@Butler: Disingenuous? I was under the impression we were talking about creationists in general and not about creationism as a political movement when I wrote my comment. It was totally unintended disingeuousity.

Most political movements are harmful to children and society and are fundamentally dishonest except the ones you favor. Bad political movements (the ones I do not favor) are a necessary evil in life. I can tolerate, without getting white knuckles, anyone harboring and expressing ideas that are different from my own carefully thought-out midwestern white-bread opinions around my offspring or myself. Being exposed to a diversity of ideas, no matter if most sane people consider the ideas hopelessly wrongheaded, is good for children and even adults at times.

There is room for everyone’s ideas under the tent. Demanding intellectual orthodoxy, even good orthodoxy, is bad. Once someone gives the okay to whack people or movements like the creationists or creationism because they deserve, as you say, the scorn and ridicule of everyone who disagrees with them, who is next? The Muslims? The Jews? The Buddists? The Democrats? (If there is ever a vote on this, I vote, after carefully making sure my chad is not hanging, for the Hillaryites. I am not 100% openminded.)


Russell L. Carter 07.16.03 at 3:30 pm

“There is room for everyone’s ideas under the tent.”

No, sorry. There is a difference between science and religion, and in education the distinction must be made. The medicine that cures your physical ills is different from the medicine that soothes your soul. I’m totally ok with a great big tent for the latter. Just don’t try to push science into it.


ArchPundit 07.16.03 at 4:15 pm

Intellectual orthodoxy should not be confused with intellectual rigor. Creationism is stunning in that it is bad theology, bad science, and bad politics all rolled up into one.

I feel no more responsibility to take creationists seriously than I do flat earthers because they both rest on the same sort of nonsensical ideas of what science and faith are. One group just happens to not have as effective of a lobby.


Gerry 07.16.03 at 5:11 pm

The most noteworthy aspect of this website is not what it says about our conceptions of creationism, creationists or creation scientists, or indeed what it says about our conceptions of ourselves as supposedly smart, rigorous non-creationist people. What is really food for thought is why someone would make such a site. Mischief? Political conviction? Social experiment?

Who does these things? There are others, lots of others I’m sure. Slightly freaky example is http://www.wholesomewear.com/ which I am hoping is what at least some anglophone cultures refer to as a piss-take. Are they done by bored web-designers looking for a job or some sort of geek-fame? It’s doin’ my head in man.


sarah smith 07.28.03 at 3:38 am

I think every one should believe
in want they wants to believe in.
We don’t have listen to one person’s ideas. I’m 10 and have and will always love and believe
in pokemon.I think moore people,”kids” believe in pokemon.

Comments on this entry are closed.