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.
(nb the innovative use of bungie cords in the above)
Pretty sure you’ve been had.
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.
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.
I think this confirms the fact that the site is a hoax, but it’s a damn good one.
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.
I find that one seldoms goes wrong doubting the intelligence of creationists.
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ezra picked out a good name for his website, ‘Not Geniuses’. I had someone fool me last week, though.
===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:
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Classics
The Virtual Tophet
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (theology)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Amity Wilczek (biology)
Theodore Wong
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Irascible Professor
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review