Yes, that's a real quote.

[theweaselking]

"Anyone who knows me at all knows that I break down creationist biology into four main components: design, natural evil, systematics, speciation, and biogeography. Duh, I eat poop!"

EDIT: He appears to have noticed what everyone else did and fixed, just this once, his inability to count. Which makes it much less funny

Comments

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Oh... yes... of course... We have predators in the wild... so that we don't have excess dead bodies laying around...

...uh.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I just like the "our main weapon is surprise! Surprise and fear!" phrasing.

[dreamshade.livejournal.com]

Ha!

[unknownpoltroon.livejournal.com]

The stupid was burning my brain.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

Stupid, but at least the real quote shows the minimal ability to count. (It actually says five main components).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It does?

Aw, he changed it.

He had "four main things" then a list of five earlier.

[iblis-kukl.livejournal.com]

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

I think I now see clearly the allure of Creationist Science [sic]. Everything always boils down to "God (or the Devil) did it," so there is no need to be accurate, precise, or thorough. Any layman who can manage to sound authoritative can simply pontificate about complex concepts, indulging in self-important narcissism, while simultaneously sneering at diligent and educated people who have dedicated their lives to the study, hard work, and discipline of rigorous and precise examination of the complex and nuanced natural world.

If the layman sounds plausible at all, simply by virtue of his stated ideology, others that share that ideology will line up to validate his statements and praise him; fame and praise without any study or effort, what a deal! Most research scientists are doomed never to achieve either from their peers in their lifetimes.

If you value feeling smart over being honest (or to be fair, if you are so invested in your dogma that you view all undermining statements, observations or facts as a threat), the value proposition of being a Creation Scientist is a no-brainer. Spending an afternoon writing stuff off the top of your head after a few discussions with your friends (all of whome agree with you (find that in the scientific community!)) is much less costly than actually getting a thorough education, enduring examinations and dissertations critiqued by other scientists, pursuing funding for research, and then spending months and years doing tedious repetitive experiments, pouring over statistical models, and writing exhausting and dull research papers that are, likely as not, going to get panned by your peers or, more likely, simply ignored.

In short, it is like a form of populism.

Weirdly, I now feel smarter for having read that article. I also pity those who don't know any better.

[faeriemuriel.livejournal.com]

It's hard to be a real scientist because God doesn't want us to know science.

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

No, that's not nearly self-aggrandizing enough. That would give some credit to scientists as hardworking but misguided. Instead it is better to characterize them as conspiratorial elitist buffoons who can't see the obvious truth that we chosen awesome people can all plainly see.

[faeriemuriel.livejournal.com]

Ah! I see. Like, the working hard to find an answer that's not there isn't enough--they're trying to create an answer to,um... take over the world? With...secularity?

[geekalpha.livejournal.com]

Well, when you put it that way, it just sounds silly. :)

Weirdly enough though, having indulged in antagonizing a few Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design [sic] enthusiasts, I cannot count how many times I have heard claims of some great scientist conspiracy.

Basically, the rhetoric that builds such people follows this pattern:
- We have all the answers and we are Right(tm).
- If you join us in believing all of these Right(tm) answers you are better than other people.
- People who don't believe, who question, or who undermine our Right(tm) answers are immoral, stupid and inferior people (who are probably gay communist elitists).
- Those immoral and inferior people are attacking us personally and our God-given Rights when they don't acquiesce to our Right(tm) direction. They say we are stupid and wrong and that is just hurtful (those immoral inferior bastards!)
- We (those of us who belong to the group better than those other people) must stand up and shout down, frustrate, and dominate the inferior people in the name of what is Right(tm).
- Membership and belief in what is Right(tm) is more important than any little mistake or indiscretion one of us might commit. If they don't admit the mistake, it obviously isn't true and they are just under attack. If they do admit it (once they are caught), they should be forgiven for their mistake, because at least they aren't one of those other people.
- Any fact or observed evidence that might question the Right(tm) answers is either misunderstood, irrelevant, or a lie told to lure people away from what is Right(tm).
- It is self-evident that Right(tm) is right because it never changes, no matter what.
- If you can find one flaw or question unanswered, about anything however unrelated, in the ideas of an inferior person it proves once again that you are Right(tm) (For example, evolution (biology) doesn't explain The Big Bang (speculative astrophysics) therefore evolution is wrong.)

The result is that one who joins can be smugly self-satisfied, unafraid of being wrong, surrounded by those who will validate them, and full of higher purpose from the moral high-ground. No talent, hard work, or uncertainty is required of them, only obedience.

Interestingly, people with this mind-set characterize science as a religion, when actual science is exactly the opposite. Actual scientists are constantly correcting each other, and the overwhelming goal of any research scientist is to ask a question and conduct an experiment that disproves someone else's findings, so that a new discovery can be made. That is exactly how one gets a theory or principle named after them.

Hell, they can't agree on anything except that they need some repeatable evidence to plausibly disprove someone else's conclusions. Thus, the answers given by science are in a constant state of flux and filled with uncertainty (which makes it the opposite of Right(tm)). Accuracy, precision, rigor, and comprehensiveness are the tools a scientist uses to question everything. And those are the tools of scientific method.

Scientific findings and conclusions are not a religion. It is the method used to ask questions and come to conclusions that is universally revered among scientists. That process, and the way it interacts with the world around us, is the only thing that builds conclusions and an actionable understanding of the world around us. The answers in science are not Right(tm), they are the observed responses of the natural world to questions scientists ask.

Also: monkeys. I mean, ...secularity. Exactly.

[maelorin]

ah creationism.

"look how clever this really neat non-explaination is. aren't we awesome?! ... err, i mean, isn't magical superbeing awesome. yeah!"

[sanityimpaired.livejournal.com]

What really frightens me is this person talking about teaching classes of impressionable youths.

*Facedesk*

[artemisgoddess.livejournal.com]

His entire argument points out the flaws in the theory of creationism, and yet he still clings to it?? *headdesk*