Culture Darwinism News

Kids’ book hailed as “antidote” to creationism

Spread the love

Following on “Did you know that creationists are liberals? Or versa vice? Or something?,” someone has written a children’s book that is supposed to be an antidote to creationism: Evolution, the Horrible Science:

I particularly value this book because it builds on what every child knows; the poo-laden squishiness of reality, fascinating, beautiful, and cruel. Children who have read this book will have no difficulty in recognising the creationists’ prelapsarian perfection, with its vegetarian velociraptors and lamb-cuddling lions, for what it is – so much dino dung. And they will know how best to respond – with a dino-size fart or if, like me, they are pretending to be grown-ups, with a philosophical and factual analysis, which will come to much the same thing.

Let’s see: In the previous version, creationists were evil because they were conservatives who taught that humans are responsible for the bad things in the world. In current versions, they are evil because they are liberals who believe in the Hippie’s Guide to nature.

You can tell that big changes are underway if Darwin’s defenders find it this difficult to fix, freeze, and frame the target. At least some hearers may notice that their story changed mid-frame.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

12 Replies to “Kids’ book hailed as “antidote” to creationism

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Actually all of Darwinism is mythical story telling with no actual real world evidence to back it up, and is thus, minus the big words, fit to packaged as children’s fairy tales.

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    “Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination”
    Dr. Michael Behe – 29:24 mark of following video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....fM#t=1762s

    Notes to that effect:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Michael Behe: Intelligent Design – interview with The Mind Renewed
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SmPNQrQHE

    The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    http://www-qa.scitopics.com/Th.....iency.html

  2. 2
    Barb says:

    From the OP:
    the poo-laden squishiness of reality, fascinating, beautiful, and cruel.
    What’s cruel about a rainbow? The planet Mars? An eagle riding a thermal? A waterfall? Nothing?

    Children who have read this book will have no difficulty in recognising the creationists’ prelapsarian perfection, with its vegetarian velociraptors and lamb-cuddling lions,
    That’s a lot of alliteration for an atheist.

    for what it is – so much dino dung.
    Right, because you already know everything. Oh, wait…

    And they will know how best to respond – with a dino-size fart or if, like me, they are pretending to be grown-ups,
    Wait, is he a grown up or just pretending to be one?

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 wrote,

    Actually all of Darwinism is mythical story telling with no actual real world evidence to back it up, and is thus, minus the big words, fit to packaged as children’s fairy tales.

    Spot on as usual!

    Barb, regarding “reality” . . .

    As a Russian friend of mine puts it with dramatic gestures and colorful vocabulary, “You can smell pig’s behind. That is reality. Or you can smell bacon frying in pan. That is also reality. I choose to smell bacon in pan. What part do you choose to smell.” 😉

    -Q

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    If they need to write books then it shows the growing threat of creationism to the old tired ideas of evolution.
    I love the desperation and despite that comes at creationists.
    if they really thought YEC/ID were wrong and dumb they would wink at us and be confident the public will ignore is good enough.
    INSTEAD there is fear and loathing and they are right.
    Creationism is the most famous and modern assault upon ideas in science since, I don’t know what.
    Either we will conquer soon or be conquered.
    Its gotten too big to fade away quietly.

  5. 5
    tjguy says:

    What I think is funny is that looking at things from their point of view,

    evolution evolved anti-evolutionists!

    So what! Evolution does what it does.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It seems, we need a reminder of the likely cultural impact of believing evolutionary materialism, from Dawkins himself:

    Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [–> notice the amorality] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. [–> notice the double self referential absurdity, undermining both morals and mind] The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [–> as in, what happens when you put a willfully blind eye to the telescope] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85. Emphases added.]

    I read the obvious contempt for “Creationists” as reflecting a deeper visceral hostility to God. Those who go down that road need to understand just where amorality points.

    And, those who wish to steep our children in such toxic absurdity, have much to answer for.

    KF

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Do I need to point out that an absurd, self refuting scheme falls of its own weight? But, such can be sustained through interests and their power-wielding agendas?

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: To see the point, ponder what one needs antidotes to — poisons. So, we are dealing with people who imagine it a mind poison to believe in God the Maker of heaven and earth and the things therein, including us. Now, contrast Ruse and Wilson responding to the same themes as Dawkins:

    Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will . . . In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.]

    On seeing this, I call turnabout, projective accusation on the part of those advocating “antidotes” to creationism.

  9. 9
    Yarrgonaut says:

    Youths tend to seriously question much of the information they’re brought up with. Hearing it as a child might cause some to question it further when presented with defensible alternatives.

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    Yarrgonaut is correct. My daughter has been taught various concepts of evolution throughout school (starting in the 5th grade, through HS biology) and the one thing she came away with: “It’s so confusing!”

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    antidote:

    something that corrects or improves the bad effects of something

    Christianity understands the concept of an antidote.

    But Darwinism? You’ve got to be joking. To correct or improve or counter the bad effect of something requires a value judgement.

    DAS IST STRENG VERBOTEN!

  12. 12
    tjguy says:

    Yarrgonaut says:

    “Youths tend to seriously question much of the information they’re brought up with. Hearing it as a child might cause some to question it further when presented with defensible alternatives.”

    That may be so, but not always. I think there are other reasons for that besides the fact that they were taught it when they were young. Whether it is evolution or ID or creationism or Buddhism or whatever, questioning it can be a good thing. It forces them to think about why they believe what they believe. They need to see for themselves if what they have been taught is true. If we have answers to help them through their questioning and are not threatened by their questioning, then I think we can help them grow stronger through their questioning.

    Actually, to me, this is worrisome – that atheists are no targeting kids. It is a smart strategy. I think that many today are afraid to go fully into theistic evolution or deism or atheism because they have a background in theism even if they don’t fully believe the Bible.

    But, as more and more kids grow up without the benefit of biblical teaching when they are young, it will make it harder for them to turn their backs on evolution as they grow up – even if they do have some questions about it.

    The Darwinists control the schools and this is already a very powerful advantage! So it’s very important that at home and at church, we counter what they learn at school and show them there are reasons to trust the Bible. Our own example will be paramount if we are to win the battle for our kid’s hearts. We too need to trust and value God’s Word.

    The reason many of our kids are leaving the fold is probably not all due to the influence of evolution and atheism. Perhaps some of it has to do with our own inability or unwillingness to answer their questions or our own failures as a parent and as a role model. But even if we are perfect parents, not all kids will choose to follow in our footsteps as far as our faith goes. We all face daily the temptation to go our own way as opposed to God’s way in a particular situation and in life in general.

    Barb, fortunately your daughter had you to help her with her confusion. If she had a mother who was an evolutionist, perhaps she would have received different answers.

Leave a Reply