So what is it with Charles Johnson and evolution? He’s like starting a “We Hate Creationists” club. To my knowledge, Charles Johnson does not work in any are of biological sciences. He has never done any scientific work on evolution so instead it’s just something he read about and decided it was really really important for everyone else to believe. Know who else reads something and decides it’s super important for everyone else to believe it?
Religious people.
Science is not a belief system. It is not mindlessly citing facts you’re told. It’s is a process. And either you use that process or you don’t… and if you don’t, there is no shame in it. It’s like we’ve put a morality behind citing specific bits of scientific data. If you went out and said, “I believe the sun revolves around the earth!” that would horrify people, but how many people have ever actually in their lives said to themselves, “I really would have screwed that up if I didn’t know the earth revolves around the sun.” Even a fact as fundamental as that is just trivial knowledge to the vast majority of people; they don’t really know the truth of the matter because they’ve never applied it. If Charles Johnson wants to help the perception of science, he should spend more time explaining why it’s completely irrelevant what he and 99.9% of the public think about evolution. It’s not science until you do something with it (and reading a lot and saying to yourself, “Here’s what I think” doesn’t count, otherwise reading the Harry Potter series and coming up with theories on Dumbledore sexuality would be science).
I, like most people, had inaccurate, out of date science text books in elementary school, and that has had absolutely no ill effect in my adult life because I don’t work in any of those sciences. If I did work in those sciences, I assume I would learn about them in college and the lab and not rely on what I was taught in fifth grade. It would be nice if instead of teaching our kids a bunch of trivia and calling it science there was more focus on the actual process of scientifically evaluating data. How many people even know how to approach the science on Global Warming if they wanted to evaluate it? Most people think you just decide to believe it or you don’t, which is where science is for most people today: A belief system, with an intricate mythology. If we want science to be of value, we need to spend more time helping people distinguishing it from a religion, and hunting down heretics probably won’t help that.
I might as well end this with a nice useless factoid. Ever been told that dinosaurs died out 65.5 million years ago? That is a well known, scientifically inaccurate statement. Scientific consensus is that humans and dinosaurs have lived at the same time within the past few thousand years, much like young-earth creationists claim.*
* Which reminds me: When I say on IMAO that our military requires dinosaurs with rocket launchers, I mean non-avian dinosaurs; the other kind would just be silly.
The left puts the bum rush on every subject….not just religion. You see an atheist stuffing evolution down peoples throats and its almost guaranteed this same atheist is a liberal.
I have been concerned about Charles Johnson lately… it’s like he’s going off the rails or something. I wish he’d stick to pointing out media bias and deceit and the anti-Semitism stuff. I’ve always been a huge LGF fan, but lately it’s gotten weird. [sigh] I just don’t think it’s as important as he’s making it out to be… particularly, I don’t think it merits EVERY OTHER POST ON A GINORMOUS HUGE BLOG SITE. C’mon, dude. Is there not enough going on in the world or something?
Obviously, the avian type dinosaurs should be equipped with beam weaponry, not missiles. Maybe some large bombs to drop, too, if the situation calls for a bigger bang!
This pains me, I used to love LGF. I am a Catholic, but have at no time found that in conflict with my knowledge of evolution. Note that I didn’t say I ‘believed’ evolution, which seems to be what Charles insists everyone sign on for. I don’t ‘believe’ evolution just like I don’t ‘believe’ gravity. They are simply the best available explanation for what the data and my own observations tell me to be true.
If some moron doesn’t think gravity exists, he doesn’t float upwards.* Likewise, people not believing in evolution has no effect on it’s scientific impact. Apparently though, every time a creationist questions a scientist, a kitten is molested or something else suitably horrific enough to get ‘ol Charlie in a tizzy.
This is hardly the place to get all serious, but I did want to make two points about LGF’s little crusade against creationism:
1. Your argument that this one little issue is going to cost the GOP elections is complete bullshit. Does a small portion of the GOP believe this stuff? Yeah. A decent portion of liberal Michael Moore fans believe that George Bush was responsible for 9/11 – how many votes has that cost them? Idiocy of the fringe isn’t as important as people think because it exists pretty equally in both parties, and as long as we have the Greens around spewing their garbage, we’ll always look normal by comparison.
2. If you’re going to start a movement to debunk pseudo-science that makes Americans look stupid when we believe in it, why not start with UFOs? Last time I checked a lot more Americans believe in things like that and bigfoot than wacko alternatives to evolution. Ever seen these alien enthusiasts? Believe me, Christians are not the ones you need to be worrying about.
*Statement not applicable for works of fiction by Douglas Adams
I don’t get it either. I have been a fan of LGF for a while now, and I applaud Charles Johnson for taking a stand against the enemies of our country, (such as Liberals and Muslim terrorists) but he has been on such an anti-creationist crusade lately that I have been considering not frequenting his site. He seems to think that being a creationist makes you anti-science. I say that’s bullcrap. I’m a born-again Christian that believes God created the Earth (and all life on it) and yet I am also a computer tech and a fan of cutting edge technology…neither of which is possible without science. But, alas, I think that Mr. Johnson is an atheist who has an axe to grind with Christians. (Which makes no sense to me, why should it bother him that I believe there’s a God?) But many atheists seem to be much more evangelical than most Christians are…but I digress… Anywho, Frank J., I don’t get it either. Especially at the time in history that we are at, when conservatives of all kinds should be banding together to combat the evils of Liberalism, Obamaism, and Muslim Terrorism…not trying to tear each other apart over where life came from…
“Science is not a belief system. It is not mindlessly citing facts you’re told. It’s is a process.” Wow. You understand the thing that most scientists today don’t. Science should be about discovering truth, whatever it is. Instead scientists today pick a belief (like Global Warming) and then try to prove it rather than just seeing if it exists or not.
“Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn’t see, or a man who’s offended by a God he doesn’t believe in?” –Brad Stine
I’m homeschooling my kids and I’m a creationist. Doesn’t mean I disagree with science, just means my conclusions are different. Also, this means my kids will be a very small subset of kids who are presented with both positions and taught to decide for themselves based on evidence what they believe. If you don’t teach your kids both sides, then it seems to me they won’t be able to defend their position based on facts. Sort of like many global warming types now…
I got booted from LGF over the evolution/creation nonsense. Charles allows creationists to be treated with utmost contempt and abuse, yet when criticized, he can’t take it. Fair enough, it’s his bandwith. Cowardly, though, and mystifying as to why he’s so enamored of the issue. I’ve checked back at LGF a couple of times, thinking maybe the issue has died down, and perhaps I should grovel and ask for commenting rights again (I do miss the lounge), but each time I’ve visited, the evolution/creation thing is prominent. Obsessed, he is.
“Science is not a belief system. It is not mindlessly citing facts you’re told. It’s is a process.”
Ummmm…it is when it pertains to climate change….
[Look up “dinosaur” on wikipedia and read the first paragraph. -Ed.]
Oh Frank – Charles is SSOOOOO going to ban you from the comments now.
…and – btw – it’s not just “Creationists” he has hate-on for – it’s anything having to do with any religion, anytime, anywhere.
– MuscleDaddy
Glad to know this has irritated more than just me. I used to really enjoy LGF, but now it’s pro Darwinism and dissing anyone he terms as a “creationist” nonstop. I don’t go there much anymore.
Thanks for posting this. I really miss the old Charles. This new one just seems so pissed off.
Frankly, I’m not particularly convinced by either the creationists or evolutionists. They both seem really good at debunking each-others’ out-of-date arguments. In the meantime, I have never called, thought of, or treated either side as unintelligent. This is a huge mistake in any debate. Why can’t some people just allow life to go on around these more slippery issues?
I mean, we exclude trolls and Al-Quaida types etc. from serious conversation because they just want to throw a wrench in things, but using this practice on the origins debate ends up squashing people who are often quite willing to be civil.
actually there is a group of scientists who question the whole theory of when and how the dinosaurs disappeared, because they did not disapear uniformly around the globe. They persisted for some time in the southern hemisphere. Raised as a catholic I never had any trouble reconciling the evolution theory with that of creation. IF you understand the times that the bible was written and the literary style of the Hebrews, you will understand why most Jews dont either. The bible is a series of morality tales heavy with metaphors. Seven days can easily be 5 billion years, just as it most certainly Methusalah did not live to be 900 years old.
I’ve given up on Charles Johnson a few months ago. His attacks on anyone he disagrees with are purely ad hominem.
Funny, I wonder what dinosaurs called it when dinosaurs argue with personal attacks? Ad dinosaur? Maybe just “lunch.”
Excellent post Frank. The anti-creationist stuff has become so tedious. I don’t even read any of his posts with “creationist” in the title anymore. It’s nice to see that I’m not alone in that sentiment. LGF used to be the first blog that I’d read every morning. Now it is dead last. I agree with you that a creationist probably ran over his dog. Or dumped him. Or used to steal his luch money.
Maybe it’s a trap; maybe Charles is hacking away at his religious/ID readership to bait the pseudoscience buffs over to LGF, thereby increasing his traffic while simultaneously exposing them to the reality that the MSM & nutroot bloggers shelter them from.
You think the disparity between Darwiniacs & Fundies is bad? Just imagine the cognitive dissonance the liberal readers of LGF are experiencing when faced with reality & having a discussion outside of their DK & Huffpo echo cambers!
I too gave up on Mr. Johnson after, oh, I’d say, his fifth or sixth anti-creationist screed. I have a BS in Biology with a minor in conservation, and I’m one of those ‘weirdos’ who, after careful consideration of the ‘facts’ and data ended up having a really hard time looking at something as simple as an amoeba under the microscope and believing that this little creature had come about by a ‘random mixing of chemicals over a billions and billions of years, and a great deal of luck’. I was always a Christian, I’m just more of one now, I guess, and what raises the hackles on the back of my neck is folks on both sides of the ‘Creationism’ wall who become so violently vituperative when it comes to their systems. Dunno about anybody else, but I sure feel a lot better believing that I was created by a loving God for a purpose, rather than being a lucky roll of the dice in the crapshoot of existence.
LGF did one great service to the world and Charles and the dozen or so major hangers on over there have been living off the fading glory ever since. I’m an agnostic and was totally turned off by the rampant intolerance and bigotry that place started giving off about six to nine months ago. It is apparent Charles is NOT a conservative and hates the fact his awakening on 9/11 has thrown him into an alliance with them. So I guess he is out to ‘enlighten’ us heathen so that we will be fit to be in his company.
The obots on Slashdot are more tolerant of dissenting opinions.
‘Windbag’ up there has it exactly right. I just popped over to the comments on the linked post above, and lo and behold, what do we see as comment 27?
27 Charles 2/24/09 12:58:32 pm reply quote
Comments complaining about this topic will be deleted. Continue complaining and your account will be blocked.
Even though I agree with Johnson that evolution is most likely true, I’ve gotten so sick of his self-righteousness about it that I don’t go there anymore.
#18: “I sure feel a lot better believing that I was created by a loving God for a purpose, rather than being a lucky roll of the dice in the crapshoot of existence.”
Amen!
OT, I think “Ballistic Jello” (#5) is a totally cool handle. 😉
Nothing says “tolerance” like being banned at LGF for doing nothing more than daring to vote some comments up/down on one of the hourly we-hate-you-ignorant-religious-hicks post. I’m quite happy to give the hamsters a rest by not visiting the site any more.
Okay, here is my theory about it.
I think he said one time that he believes in evolution and suddenly was besieged by young earth creationists who were not terribly tolerant and loving as a Christian should be. So he ended up feeling besieged and pretty soon he ended up in a bad place where he can’t tell his friends from his enemies.
I am worried about him too, that he might end up being “Sullivaned” by this whole thing (as in, Andrew Sullivan). He used to be a serious man who worried about serious threats. Now he worries that someone doesn’t believe in evolution. And it colors everything. Go look at his post right now on Jindal and don’t you get the sense that his entire thinking was colored by the fact that Jindal has committed the sin of being a creationist?
It is some bad craziness going on over there. That used to be something Johnson would say about others. These days it applies to him and the evolutionists over there.
I just wish someone could get through to him.
Agreed – thanks for putting into words what I’ve been thinking for a while. I no longer visit the site and took it off my bookmark list. Now if I could only “un”register there. I became a chemist in the 1970’s and am appalled at what passes for science now.
Maybe he’s on steroids. I know this sounds so silly, but steroids make people stupid and aggresive. There is a guy here at work who takes the stuff. Also he has probably been sucked into the vortex of the netherliberaland which depletes your brain cell of vital oxygen and short circuits your rational abilities. Pray for him. The poor dear is going to be forever thrust randomly about in an agonizing limbotic fervor of hatred kinda like sean penn.
Charles Johnson’s slow, sad descent into paranoid megalomania has been well-documented by blogs on both the left and the right.
I don’t particularly disagree with his view on evolution but his severe obsession with the topic makes it seem like he’s very frightened and insecure about it. I remember once (before I was banned without explanation) he was talking about his new Kindle. When asked what he was reading he named two “evolution good/creationism bad” books. It’s almost like he’s struggling frantically to convince himself that creationism isn’t real. Does he have a phobia of snakes and apples or something? What a weirdo.
Another thought I had, which someone alluded to earlier, is the issue of traffic. Once LGF became popular, it seemed to me that he sort of trimmed the edges. By doing so, he created some more buzz, plus he became a hero to those who agreed with him. It probably drove more traffic to his site, as a result.
Most websites fade. HotAir was cutting edge in the early days, now it’s run of the mill. On the other hand, IMAO is the only blog that improves with time.
Frank, you’ve hit the issue right on the nose. It’s not about creation vs. evolution, it’s much larger than that. It’s science vs. dogma. For many people, science has become a replacement religion (just like Liberalism is a replacement religion for hippies). Therefore, for them, if you don’t accept the tenets of the One True Science, then you’re not only wrong, you’re dangerous and probably evil. It’s the same instinct in Man-Made Global Warming vs. Natural Climate Cycles, and I’ve seen it in other fields as well (Ancient Egyptian Historical Chronology, for example — some defenders of the Traditional Chronology rabidly attack promoters of the newer, revised chronologies, trying to disprove their every point without stopping to consider if they might be right).
Real science doesn’t care which side is right, real science only cares about the truth. Real science is delighted to be proven wrong, because that means they’re that much closer to the truth.
Here’s some science for you racist crackers: believe in Me, or else!
I understand, and approve of his posts against teaching creationism in schools, but he does seem to be on some sort of vendetta sometimes, and his tone has been angrier lately, not just toward creationists. I don’t like the angry tone.
Of course most liberals are atheists. How else can you justify abortion?
… but eating meat is murder.
Island Girl (#24)-
That meat-head at your job you were referring to; his name wouldn’t happen to be Sam, would it?
Just curious…
To AR:
I think teachng creationism in schools is necessary to provide at least a contrast to the Darwinism that is taught as unchallengable fact.
I donn’t care if you belive in God, science, purple eliphants,or garden gnomes. Just do not try to PUSH your beliefs on me or my children.
Hence why I stopped commenting on LGF only a short time after I managed to land a posting account there last year (waited two years…). The evolution vs creationism debates would die down and he’d start them up again, seemingly just to piss everyone off. Didn’t really appreciate the vitriol that was spread there. Couldn’t stay after the many posts saying that anyone who believed different was a brain-dead moron. If I wanted that, I’d go read and post at the HuffPo and its ilk. Or any of Bobby Crosby’s websites.
To JAGernaut
What about Spontaneous Biogenesis? Should that be taught too? At least that was “proven” using the scientific method.
Should the Elemental view of Physics be taught as a contrast to Atomic Theory?
People still teach Psycho-Analysis in Psychology classes, and look how people regard Psychology! Teaching creationism just makes science look bad.
I think it was predictable. Conservatives in some part lost the election because liberals successfully split the Christian vote. Many Christians were so disheartened at the choice of McCain, they just refused to vote. The black church stampeded to vote Obama. It was foreseeable that some or many conservatives would get ticked at anyone calling themselves a religious voter. I saw some of this on powerlineblog before the election with people posting long nasty rants about how conservative Christians had better straighten up and fly right. It’s sad, but was foreseeable.
Heh! Me and me blog mateys were just discussing this the other day. I can’t even tolerate LGF anymore, and it was the blog that got me into the whole blog thing. The whole anti-Creationist obsession is really unbecoming – especially when it’s every 2 or 3 posts. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Thanks Frank!
In the early part of the 20th century, a group of scientist went out to Utah and extracted a dinosaur to take back to the Carnegie Institute. That dinosaur stood for 40+ years with wearing the wrong head…….
Scientific theory is anything that can not be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. Thus all science is THEORY, otherwise know as someone’s best guess. Sometimes that works, most times it is proved wrong.
Heb. 11: 1 (1-40).
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It can not be proved of the world, but for the faithful it does not need to be. They have received their witness.
I personally do not care whether someone thinks the world is 6000 years old or 6000000000000000000000. As long as they are tolerant of what I believe I can be tolerant of what they believe. Of course it is awfully tempting to start an “We hate conservatives who think they can tell us what to believe in” but that is so counter productive.
I always thought in the Republican party there was room for agreeing to disagree but after what went on with McCain and Huckabee and their willingness to use religion not only as a litmus test but as mace to bludgeon anyone they didn’t feel fit the appropriate hole, I decided I was wrong. I’m still looking for a party that wants someone like me…… but I see that conservatives are still willing to feed on each other instead of fighting the enemy.
We have met the enemy and he is us.- Pogo
It’s sad. Soon, LGF and Charles Johnson will be as irrelevant as … me.
Charles should pimp my new biography, “How To Be An Atheist Without Being A Dick About It”. It’s a fascinating tale of how I believe what I want and don’t act like a fucking 14 year old rebelling against their parents into middle age.
Yea, Christianity really screwed things up for a few hundred years but it’s helped us to *gasp* evolve into a more understanding and pluralistic culture than the ones under other major religions.
Seriously. Put down the George Carlin LP and take a Midol.
I generally share the same beliefs as Charles, but he sure has become hostile to people who don’t. I still read his posts, but the comment area is no place to hang around these days.
Exactly my point. Evangelical Christians are friends of the Jews (jooooos) and Israel as well. It seems unwise for Charles to bite many of the hands that feed him.
The fervent evolutionists seem to get their sense of self worth from the number of degrees they have, their real world achievements, and the “irrefutable evidence” they bring to the evolution/ID argument. “Look at me! Look at me! I’m the smartest guy in the room! And because I am so obviously superior to you, my elite knowledge gives me status (therefore I matter). *spit*
More narcissism on parade at a blog that had a noble calling: expose Islam and expose media bias. Who needs LGF anymore???
There is so much to say about the early times (book of Job, when Satan was still Lucifer, etc.). I’ll try and cobble together a few salient scriptures to whet your appetites, but it might be Thursday before I can post it.
Agreed.
I got banned from his site for calling him hostile. I had an account there for 4 years, he was my favorite blogger (after Frank, of course), now I don’t even read his site because its so annoying. It started with one or two innocent sounding posts; then he went nuts.
Thanks for posting this Frank. I really hope that he fixes his site and makes it cool again – because I honestly thought that he had the potential to take on Kos and become an activist site.
I don’t see how telling everyone they are retarded helps the scientific method. but guess that’s why you go to college. To tell other people they are retarded. At least that’s what the guy with communications degree who served me coffee at Starbucks told me yesterday.
Side note on this subject. The movie “Expelled” by Ben Stine is about this very topic, and a facinating movie. It was great since it kept me intrested and my wife got her best sleep in months. You can get it at most redboxes.
LGF-aka Charles – puts an extraordinary amount of his space to creationist and evolutionary topics.
Far as I know, he figures Intelligent design and Evolution can live in the same space, which is my own opinion based purely on a Rational Weltanschauung. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hermann.raith/
And imo, creationists who want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old are whackjobs, again only my opinion. I wasn’t there.
In the final analysis, and as I have posted there quite a while back there, and been threatened to be burned at the stake for it:
– People have been standing up shouting “I have the answer !” for thousands of years only to be proved wrong over and over.
– There is much more ‘science’ in the trash bin than still surviving the test of time. Personally, I would estimate that 99% (at least) of science has been chucked over the years.
– You gotta be extremely arrogant to make a claim that there is no God. What created the big bang? All of the biblical creation text can be considered within the context of a big bang that created the entire universe. Even the 6 days and resting on the 7th. It is believed that time is extremely warped at the event horizon of a black hole, and a black hole is not even a pimple on an elephants butt compared to a big bang universe creation event. Not saying there even was a big bang thought it seems there would have to be some kind of ‘creation event’.
Suffice to say there is much more in the universe than we will comprehend over the next thousands of years. We are ants living on a tree in this context.
Frank you make a good point. Why even push the subject, you’re not going to find definitive science on either side of the argument.
Finally, it seems to me that some of the people who most want to discredit concepts such as Intelligent Design are those with an agenda: athiests, homosexuals, etc. Agenda being the key word here. Follow the money. Ask why someone is pushing something. What’s the payback for them. I can certainly understand what it is for those two groups.
Like several who have commented here, I detected an eerie and troubling similarity developing between Charles’ “Creationist” screeds and Andrew Sullivan’s unhinged “Christianist” tirades when he fell off the deep end a few years back. When I made mention of this in one of the LGF comment sections, (over half of the threads were dedicated to Johnson’s “Creationist” fatwas that day), my account was blocked, and remains so a month or so later. I’d been reading and posting on LGF almost from the beginning – back when registration was always open. This was the first and only message I posted questioning his anti-“Creationist” orthodoxy, but apparently, Charles is now about as tolerant as the Looney Liberal Left he used to rail against.
And by the way, I hold degrees in Biology and Chemistry, believe that evolution, (more accurately, “natural selection”), is an ongoing process, and represents the means by which all life has developed on Earth and beyond. I also believe that God created all, but I am not so arrogant as to seek to limit or define the means by which He accomplished His ends, and so find no particular conflict in viewing evolution as a very likely means to those ends.
I daresay I’m at least as qualified as Charles to participate in the debate. It’s just a pity that he no longer allows dissent from his LGF-sanctioned “truth”.
Science is whatever Al Gore says it is…despite the fact that he has absolutely no background in, or knowledge of, science.
And God said, “Let there be rocks in the shapes of plants and of bones and teeth of fantastic beasts and let them be called fossils, and let them be scattered throughout the world that I have made to be a snare and a trap for the gullable and the proud, that their foolishness may be revealed in the fullness of time.” And it was so. And God saw that it was funny, and did not care who ya are, that’s funny right thar! (Get’er’done!)
– The Book of Larry, Cable channel #38.
At Cincinatti_Bob,
“You gotta be extremely arrogant to make a claim that there is no God. What created the big bang?”
I don’t know what created the big bang, but I do know that there was stuff before the big bang, and that time must go infinitely in both directions, and that any big bang could not be the real start of the universe. Time must go infinitely in both directions because of causation (though the whole concept of time is somewhat broken, because people try to think of it as a concrete rather than an abstract), since everything is the result of something else, there must have been something before any other thing, so time must go infinitely in both directions, if causation is true and without causation, well, we are left with essentially nihilism.
As for god, well, I doubt there is any extremely powerful being that is above nature, but how I know there isn’t a good isn’t based on that. Rather, I define a god as something worthy of worship, but can’t conceive of anything worth worshiping, things are what they are, and merely attempt to fill their function.
Not that I’m trying to convince you that there is no god, I really REALLY don’t care what other people believe, and hell, Christians often are some of the best people around, since most people who call themselves atheists are nihilists (a contradiction BTW). I just wanted to explain why not believing in god is not necessarily from arrogance.
I agree wholeheartedly with Michael Crichton (PBUH, the best advocate for bringing back the dinos…can you imagine getting a side of ribs like the one Fred Flintstone got during the opening credits!?):
Aliens cause global warming.
I reference it because I’m not sure the theory of evolution is any more relevant or based on a preponderance of evidence than man-made global climate change is. May as well say that Xenu planted the fossils we have, but totally withheld all the transitional ones for sh*ts & giggles. After all, if I get a whole bunch of really important people & all those that follow them to agree with that, we’d have a consensus. And those are never wrong.
Oops I made a Typo:
“isn’t a good isn’t”
should be god, not good.
Johnson hates creationism because he sees it as a threat to science and all it has done for us. He applies a certain silent moral equilvalance to it and the Taliban. It is the other oposing view point not existing within in the confines of science yet trying to supplant or merge with it, thereby causing civilization to regress. Funny though he doesn’t seem to mind science doing the same to religion (Christianity really). He sees only science as being responsible for our progress. Our science is a symtom not a cause. The cause of our progress is Christianity and not just Christianity but Protestantism specifically (with apologies to all the Catholics reading this). None of modern science could exist without it. Where would it have come from; Japan, Persia, China, Meso-America, Italy? (Galileo while not a Protestant theologically worked at a time when anti-Papism was sweeping Italy) Not likely. They were all busy with repression and maintaining ruling class stability. Guess which direction we’re headed? And Johnson is worried about creationists.
He should be more worried about science corrupting religion or even science becoming a religion; witness global warming – climate change and yes evolution. these two branches of science are fast becoming a new religion, and a very intolerant one at that, but hey creationists are going to be the ruin of the world.
For those who think evoltion is settled science then you haven’t been paying attention. I have been paying attention to the latest in science since I was small. The theory has changed greatly since then. Oh it’s because of new discoveries you will say. Yes I used to believe that. But then I looked at the what the creationists are saying. As soon as they point out a gaping hole in a theory there is a new dicovery to fill that hole. I mean like days a month or at most a year later. After observing that I realized the scientists especially in the historic fields (anthropology, geology etc.) are responding not to other scientists as they claim but to religious people.
Many people see through global warming but yet not evolution. Isn’t there prestige, money and grants in that also?
This kind of hatred and censorship from Charles Johnson, Richard Dawkins, and other militant evolutionists, as well as the militant Global Warming types, and any other kind of “militant scientist” indicate to me someone with a deep emotional investment in their pet theory being right. To some extent, they have allowed their theory to define who they are as a person — for example, Al Gore’s crusade to save the world from Global Warming gives his life meaning and purpose, so he’s deeply emotionally invested in it being true. An attack on Global Warming is an attack on him, and he responds in kind. It all becomes personal.
Emotion makes a terrible substitute for reason, especially when dealing with science.
Religious faith itself, a belief in a higher power or creator God, may not be the problem ahead, despite the hype. In fact, religion- specifically Judeo-Christian faith, but limited to that- does more to unify the family, instill a sense of moral obligation to one another, and foster a respect for being good citizens & stewards of the land. It does this in a way the state cannot; and that where the state becomes that scary Orwellian image.
The notion that the state has your best interests in mind & knows what’s best for you is absurd. That they will try to regulate everything you do, in public or private, is abhorrent. Try to name all the things you do or would like to do that aren’t regulated, as opposed to all the things that are…I bet the second part of that list is waaaaay longer than the first. Scared yet? It gets worse.
I say this in relation to what Ralph stated above:
“[Johnson] should be more worried about science corrupting religion or even science becoming a religion; witness global warming – climate change and yes evolution. these two branches of science are fast becoming a new religion, and a very intolerant one at that, but hey creationists are going to be the ruin of the world.”
Just to name a couple examples. The State wants to be the priesthood & science the deity. Look at the regimes of the last century- Fascist, Nazi, or Communist; what they had in common is the idea that the state should replace the role of God and religion. They believed that class differences could be eradicated as long as everyone fell in line, and (eerily like how conservatives & their views are viciously attacked in the media & schools today) dissent cannot be readily tolerated. Family values were seditious, and children needed to be molded in the image of obedient productive parts of a larger machine right from the time they could walk & talk.
Their embraces of Darwinism, eugenics, isolated nationalism and “scientific socialism” opened the door to speculation-turned-fact that Negroids & other races were obviously inferior, Jews were corrupt by their very nature, and people who held religious views were superstitious idiots who desperately needed reeducation and governmental guidance into the true light of Mammon-or else.
All that led to the violent oppression of religious beliefs & the death of millions upon millions of people.
But hey, science marches on!
Oops:
“In fact, religion- specifically Judeo-Christian faith, but limited to that-”
I meant “…but NOT limited to that”. I don’t want to seem intolerant; that’s reserved for use by Progressives against white Christian non-Liberals.
Frank, thank you for bringing this issue to light. Scott F. may have said it most eloquently in his reply to this post, but simply, Charles has turned LGF into a sad mockery of it’s former glory with his anti-creationist tirades. It has become more of a laughingstock of it’s former self, more akin to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post.
LGF was always my “first visited” spot on the web, now it is wayyyy down my list- it’s like watching a favorite uncle slip futher and further into the grip of dementia. Sooner or later, you have to pull the plug. (well, at least in England or the Netherlands).
Charles, get a grip. Evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive, and can coexist. Lay off, and play nice. Let other people believe what they want, and realize that forcing a personal opinion down the throats of your readers is the very definitition of evangelistic fervor. We miss the old LGF, and would like to see it return someday.
End of statement.
-VPGP
I left LGF at about the time Johnson threw Robert Spencer under the bus. He’s lost it.
Mr. Johnson also criticized Geert Wilders viciously, and I couldn’t help but think at the time that here’s one really angry dude. I didn’t quite understand the need to be so hostile. And then there’s the banning of people with whom you disagree. I visit the site but have only submitted comments once or twice. There just isn’t a real need for me to get into a pissing contest, or merely chime in.
If Charles were monitoring this comment thread, there would be nothing to read here. Frank is a much more benevolent dictator. Will I get purged for saying that?
You bible-clingers are sooooo stupid. You still haven’t figured out that I replaced Charles Johnson with one of my minions. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
To AR, #38:
One difference between these other theories and Darwinism is that it is not a social “sin” to argue against the other theories. Not believing in Darwinism, or even failing to promote the theory, can result in being dismissed from one’s job.
The other difference is that Atomic Theory is taught as just that – a theory. Darwinism is taught as fact, even though it is just as impossible to prove as Creationism.
Also, abiogenesis with its “primordial soup” is a rather important part of Darwinism. I’m a bit surprised you would not want it taught, even though it already is a part of most curriculums.
I used to go to LGF but like someone else in the comments said, around the time his 6th screed about Creationists barreled through I realized Charles had lost it. Something something and the drowning person will take you down under with them blah blah. And he’s a friggin total control freak. Incredible job building his websites’ security and features, but then again the Nazis created the V2 didn’t they? I didn’t know he dissed Robert Spencer, but I did know of him getting really ugly with Atlas Shrugged.
Meh, he can go suck rope. Never going there again.
IMAO and mu.nu are all I need.
Robert Spencer, and more recently, Geert Wilders.
Wow B-ho, you’re good. Thanks for outing yourself for those of us who didn’t know. 🙂
Wow.
That was one of the first trips through one of Charles’ ID threads I’d really taken. That one page had more deleted comments on it, in one place, than I ever think I’ve seen over several years of reading LGF. (cut my teeth in the comments before joining Silent Running, lo…ida know, but I was HERE BEFORE FRANK! (yeah, and? ok))
Having read LGF since 01, and even having taken the leisurely stroll through the original pre-9/11 archives, it was completely unsurprising to me the number and vehemence of Charles’ Creatoinis/Evolution threads. I have very little doubt from reading his material over time that he sees what the creationists are doing, insisting that scientific theory and religious dogma be presented side by side as co-equal, competing ideologies, thus creating a false ‘either or’ choice, as being virtually no different than the insistence by radical Islamists that the Quran is the be all end all word on the subject. And if you recall, he’s been just as brutal when those folks show up on video replacing scientific result with religious dogma, and calling it all a poodle. Thing is, when he’s handing them a beat down on the subject, it’s ok, cause, well, thems furriners, I guess. Ida know.
Anyhoo. Just a guess, but probably the biggest bee in his bonnet on this is the dilution and disruption of science education via the introduction of non-scientific material into the mix. Because elementary and secondary school science isn’t about creating legions of Nobel Laureates suited for an entry level service position, no, the actual point (I think I read this somewhere, and it sounds kinda good, in theory. . . in theory whooo I’m on FIRE!_) Anyway, the actual point is to teach them the scientific methodology of observing and gathering data, correlating the data, and then through rational analysis and testing, to arrive at a conclusion, in an orderly, verifiable, and logical manner. Not exactly the mission statement of most theological instruction, which, whine about ‘alternate theory’ all you want, is really what’s being done. I’ll bet anyone out there a dollar that if the predominate religion in the United States were Buddhism, instead of having Judeo-Christian origins, that we’d be having this discussion.
I think I pretty well grok Charles’ revulsion to the concept, for a number of reasons. The primary being the chilling parallel between hard core Islamists insisting that the Quran is the alpha and omega and everything in between, and a Fundamentalist Christian (who happened to be wearing a US Air Force Uniform, and held the grade of Major) look me dead in the eye and tell me, without hint of sarcasm, blush response, or pupil dilation that the Bible was the literal word of God (oddly enough, the topic arose about a discussion of food, and how he wouldn’t eat “sea bugs” [shellfish] cause the Bible said not to)(yeah, I also found out he was one the 6K years, dino for a cave pet kinda folks). Charles (and I, to a certain extent) sense the same dangerous, illiberal (as in classical western liberalism) attitudes and intolerance – or at least the seeds of it, in American Fundamentalists.
Which goes a long way towards explaining the superficially inexplicable underbussing of Wilders by Johnson. If you hold opinions or positions Charles finds abhorrent, it doesn’t matter to him how many other things he may agree with you on. You’re done. And in Wilders’ case, while I agree that Wilders’ message is critical for people in the West to not only hear, but truly comprehend, I find, as Charles does, that Wilders’ connection to, work with, and support of the positions held by radical white supremacist groups is absolutely revolting. I’m not going to comment on Charles’ underbussing Spencer, I haven’t followed the drama too closely.
It kind of reminds me of a break I had with Meryl Yourish a few years ago, about semantics, religion, what people chose to call themselves, and who had veto power over their choice of titles. I love Meryl to death, and really enjoy her writing, but man, when the R word became the basis for the sticking point between us, well, let’s just say that Han Solo in the Carbon Freeze probably would have been more receptive to rational discussion once it became a point of religion.
Which is Charles’ whole frakkin point!
Science is about a methodology of rationally structured discussion, curiosity, exploration, and discovery. It’s a journey, not a destination. Religion, and its derivative dogmas, are, by their very nature, antithetical to this process, as with religion, you either believe, or not. There is no proof. There is no questioning, it’s the word of THE LORD!
Eh, ok, if that floats yer boat.
Which gets to the second part of what I suppose to be the major components stoking Charles’ on this – we’re already doing a crappy enough job on the large scale of things, getting our children to exercise their brains, via the current state of education in this country. Someone pointed out that ‘most people can see through Global Warming as a sham”.
O Rly?
Not if millions of them can look at the falsehood riddled, logically preposterous, and just plain hysterics that Al Gore presented to the world via PowerPoint, then immediately rush out to find out where to send off their money to buy carbon credits or make a down payment on a Prius. And if most people can ‘see through’ the scam, how come the blowhards yappin loudest about how humans are killing the planet got more votes? Hell, it’s even so pervasive that Johnny Mac was making Kyoto noises, lest he be tarred and feathered.
Why – because Math and Science Ed SUCKS canal water already, and juxtaposing non-scientific religious dogma into the middle of an already pretty lousy system is going to make the situation better. . . how? Explain that one to me again? Other than the fundie parents of the kids still in public schools will now not have to rely on their own home teachings and however many trips to church they may take a week to make sure that the Cliff’s Notes version of Genesis gets into their kids’ noodles, I’m missin the upside here.
And if the best explanation you can come up with is so that everyone can now feel all better about themselves, well, my best, most carefully considered response to such a position would have to be –
Fuck you. I wanna go to Mars. And we ain’t gittin there monkey-jackin around with this crap, in this manner.
Charles Johnson is a good guy.
He just hates anti-science creationists. And people who think it’s ok to be a creationist. And people who don’t hate people who think it’s ok to be a creationist.
He also hates Fascists. And people who meet with Fascists. And people who link to sites of people who meet with Fascists. And people who once smelled a fart of people who once met with people who link to sites of people who meet with Fascists.
See? Told ya. A good guy.
” 69. Fuck you. I wanna go to Mars. And we ain’t gittin there monkey-jackin around with this crap, in this manner.”
Yes – totally rational statement. Because a lack of belief in evolution would undoubtedly preclude one from constructing a rocket, plotting the proper trajectory, and executing the mission.
I’m sure the second half of Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘One Small Step’ speech included how thankful he was that he didn’t believe in the Sky Faerie, or else he would have spontaneously combusted on stepping foot on the moon. Again, does not believing in gravity cause one to fly off into space?
Our ancient ancestors didn’t understand evolution, yet they managed to adapt it’s principles for use in producing superior strains of crops and livestock thousands of years ago. We’ve been using unnatural selection to breed selective traits into animals and plants since before recorded history. Did the fact they didn’t understand it keep them from employing it to better their lives?
You and Charles are both way off the reservation on this one.
“anti-science creationists”.
I love terms like that. It puts everyone who leans toward creation into a neat little package in which to disparage them. It seems the best way to overcome an opponent is to simply objectify them, apparently. That’s methodical, so it’s not an unscientific thing to do, right? And yet, I’ve heard that some of the great founders of modern science were religious; some were muslim, even…
#66Corona,
“I did know of him getting really ugly with Atlas Shrugged.” Say what?! Do you mean Atlas Shrugs? I know he’s not a fan of Atlas Shrugs but if he disses Atlas Shrugged, he’s gone into a realm of true looniness.
At AR (53).
I agree with the infinity. In fact I agree with Carl Sagan who proposed that the material world also goes to infinity in both directions. Solar systems as atoms. Atoms as solar systems as crude imagery.
I don’t know whether there is a God or what a God might actually be. I tend to doubt the individual entity image. God is everything. Nature is everything. Maybe God is nature and all dimensions. I could worship that. I can worship Capitalism, though it won’t be around much longer.
So, I was trying to say that it is arrogance to say without the slightest doubt – that there is – or there isn’t fill in the blank.
I do know there is the struggle between good and evil (Good and Evil – God and Devil, interesting) on this rock. There is surely evil and there is surely good. I’m satisfied combating evil as a physical practice and waiting to find out about the rest. Well, this is no bullet point subject eh.
Einstein said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. I can agree with that .
PS – Frank. IMAO should be one of the main blogs now. Seriously.
The desire to explain the universe without God is older than Darwin.
Christianity is large enough to contain (in the sense of explain, or have a place for) the universe, history, all religions and philosophies, all science, all politics, and every living soul; Those who accept it as well as those who reject it.
The only one it cannot contain or explain (fully) is God.
Man, apart from Christ, cannot even explain himself.
Man can only really become himself when he stops trying to be god.
One wonders (at least this one does) what it is about the idea of a “god” that makes some people foam at the mouth.
Is it the idea that there is someone higher on the evolutionary food chain than man? I would figure there should be someone above us, because I don’t think we are covering ourselves with glory here.
Is it the idea that someone has authority to set guidelines for our behavior? There again if we could control ourselves we wouldn’t need perimeters. Or is it that man in his hubris considers himself to be natures greatest creation? Surely not.
Maybe it’s that if man can convince himself that an accident got us here in the first place, he really doesn’t have to try to control his baser nature because it will all work out in the end, by accident, thus relieving himself from any responsibility for anything, ever.
My head is going to explode now. Good night and as Red Skelton was want to say after every Monday night show, “God Bless”.
Family Guy joke with a new twist:
Creationist boy: Why did the dinosaurs die out?
Charles Johnson: Because you creationists touch yourselves at night, that’s why.
> Having read LGF since 01, and even having taken the leisurely stroll through the original pre-9/11 archives, it was completely unsurprising to me the number and vehemence of Charles’ Creatoinis/Evolution threads.
But that is my overarching point. It’s 9/10 thinking. 9/11 thinking is, creationists or not, we have bigger issues right now.
> I have very little doubt from reading his material over time that he sees what the creationists are doing
He goes further than that, veering into downright paranoid territory, accusing anyone who disagrees on strategy or whatever as being in with the creationists. Like they introduced a bill in one state saying “kids should be taught to question.” He says, this is a creationist trick. And maybe it is. But, I said to him, if you attack it at this point, it makes you look like you are close-minded. He first accused me of trying to trick him somehow and then wrote a whole post telling us that he was close-minded on evolution. Which, by the way, is unscientific. Every theory is open to the possibility that it could be wrong. Darwin himself admitted that there were certain things that might disprove his theory, but so far those things hadn’t materialized. Its part of the scientific method. Even when a theory graduates to being a law of nature, scientists are open to the possibility that this might be wrong. Mind you, they would probably fall down in shock if suddenly every action didn’t have an equal and opposite reaction, but they are open to the possibility that even a law can be wrong.
> thems furriners
It could have something to do with the fact that there he is dealing with islamofascism. And its not as “foreign” as I would like.
> The primary being the chilling parallel between hard core Islamists insisting that the Quran is the alpha and omega and everything in between, and a Fundamentalist Christian
Right, and when those fundamentalist Christians fly planes into buildings, intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians, you let me know.
> Which is Charles’ whole frakkin point!
I like the BSG reference.
> Science is about a methodology of rationally structured discussion, curiosity, exploration, and discovery.
You’re right, that’s absolutely what it should be. But it isn’t over there.
It reminds me of a discussion I had with a psychiatrist about John Brown. I said, “People always said he was nuts, but you know what? If you transported me back in time to his times, geez, I think I might have done something a lot like him. Slavery was so evil, that radical armed action was fully justified.” And the shrink said, “well yes, but you can be irrationally correct.” That’s what Charles is, right now. Irrationally correct. He is absolutely right. From a scientific point of view, evolution is the best explanation for how we got here. and he is also right that doesn’t inherently contradict faith, because the scientific method starts with the assumption that there is no divine intervention and as I have said repeatedly, you cannot disprove a proposition by a system of logic that assumes it away. And of course the belief in an omnipotent God is non-falsifiable.
But when I say things that don’t smell like their dogma, they go apeshit all over me. For instance, he published a wikified list of top ten signs of evolution in our body. I said, very clearly, that I believed in evolution, but 8 of those items stank. For instance, the number one example was the appendix, which the author claimed had no known function. I pointed out that in fact we had discovered its function. For this, I was pummeled repeatedly on the site, even by people who conceded I was at least partly right. for instance they claimed that it was a DI trick to say “evolution is real, but this evidence of it is bad.” As though no one ever genuinely points out when evidence is bad. And when I said that I believed that since a belief in an omnipotent God was nonfalsifiable, and thus for all we know, creation could have happened 6,000 years ago, and God left no evidence, they claimed I was trying to create a false equivalency and planning to use that to introduce creationism into schools. It was lunacy. I say something that is no one can rationally dispute as a point of logic, and I am suddenly an evil creationist shoving doctrine down people’s throats in our public schools.
And when I said to Charles once that I was sick of the whole stupid topic, he banned me for about 3 months.
I mean his recent excuse was that Darwin had his 200th birthday. But Lincoln did, too. Guess how many posts he did about Lincoln? One. Call me crazy, but isn’t Lincoln a little more important than that. you say you want to get to Mars. I want the whole earth to be democratized. And Lincoln and his philosophy helps with that goal.
Anyway, my point and my beef is that he seems to be obsessive and irrational on the topic, even when he is right. I wish we could get back the old Johnson, who worried about terrorists more than creationists.
I should have said my comment was in response to 69 from Wind Rider. my bad.
Thank you for posting on this, Frank! I used to read LGF religiously (*ahem*) back in the day, but I can’t even stand to click over there anymore. His vendetta against the eeeebil creationists has gotten so out of hand. There are more important things to worry about, dude. How many creationists are out there beheading people? Flying planes into buildings? Committing mass murder? Mutilating the genitals of their 7-year-old daughters?
Yeah, I thought so.
This is an awesome post Frank. Very well said, mate.