George Tiller: Death by Propaganda »« Whassup with the show…

Christian Right defecating selves over McLeroy rejection

And as always, whenever someone of that ilk (I love words like “ilk” — they sound so yuckily apropos in instances like these) opens his yap, lies flow like especially pungent and curdled vomit. Remember, creationists can’t not lie. Here are some quotes from a fundagelical email making the rounds, playing the usual Christian “persecution” card. Crazy Hint #1: strategic use of ALL CAPS.

…The highly partisan Sen. Kirk Watson and Sen. Eliot Shapleigh and the highly partisan TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK, have successfully brought the Satanic art of “BORKING” to Texas … ; they recently managed to smear Dr. Don McLeroy, a good and decent man, with sickening LIES. This tag-team of DEMONS claimed that Dr. McLeroy tried to force CREATIONISM into the Science Classroom, and they told this brazen LIE over and over again.

Yes, let’s all ignore the fact that members of the creationist special interest group known fondly to us all as The Discovery Institute were appointed by the SBOE under McLeroy to review science education and TEKS test standards. Let’s ignore the fact that that bimbo Terri Leo let her creationist freak-flag fly proudly by publicly spouting such creotard phraseology as “militant Darwinists” in front of SRO public meetings. Let’s ignore the fact that Ken Mercer repeatedly makes an ass of himself by publicly spewing criticisms of nonexistent “weaknesses” of evolution that come straight from creationist literature (there’s evidence for “microevolution” and none for “macroevolution,” and similar bullshit). Let’s ignore that fact that Mac has just plain come right out and stated he believes the Earth is 6000 years old, a belief as moronically contrafactual as saying Los Angeles is a hundred yards from New York City, and that a person that frakkin’ stupid has no business determining the educations of millions of schoolchildren. Nope, no creationism on this board, nosiree.

I have to disagree with one piece of equivocation TFN insists on making (perhaps in an effort not to alienate more liberal and pro-science minded theists), that Mac’s religious beliefs were not the reason he was so vehemently opposed, his incompetence and ideology were.

Mac’s religious beliefs indeed would not have been an issue…until he made them the issue by trying to inject them into curricula.

Mac’s desperate defenders try to peddle the absurd spin that Mac simply wanted students to have the “academic freedom” to examine the evidence, pro and con. You know, the not-so-crafty lie that the creationists have constructed so as to make them seem like they’re the scientifically-minded and intellectually “honest” ones. But the transparency of that spin is readily apparent to anyone who has followed the recent history of American creationism and seen precisely how the movement has evolved to take advantage of political realities.

The “teach the controversy” and “academic freedom” rhetoric they advance now is specifically designed to sow basic doubts in students’ minds about the validity of and support for evolutionary science. Overtly teaching creationism is something they know they can’t do, but they’ve discovered something even more weaselly effective: simply plant the nugget of doubt that evolution is well-supported by evidence, and then everything the student encounters in his extracurricular life — validation from equally ignorant and ill-educated church members; crazy conspiracy theories from Ben Stein; “reasonable” sounding design arguments like irreducible complexity — will do the rest.

They don’t really care about knowledge or the scientific method. The only agenda of the believer is to protect the belief. Even if that requires posing as an “open-minded” science supporter when you actually seek to completely gut science and everything it teaches us about reality.

So, yes, I will come right out and say that Mac’s religious beliefs were at the root of why he was rejected from a position he was totally unqualified to hold. And it’s because he chose to inject those beliefs inappropriately into his work, disguising them (poorly) in the rhetoric of the increasingly politically savvy anti-evolution movement.

Our idiot blithers:

The TRUTH is that Dr. McLeroy and the SBOE have simply asked that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD be applied fairly and universally in the Science Classroom; in particular, they have ask that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD even be applied to two SACRED-COWS/RELIGIONS of the Liberal Democrats, namely, (1) Darwinian Evolution and (2) Global Warming.

Newsflash, butt-biscuit-for-brains. The scientific method has been applied to those concepts (we leave sacred cows and religions to fools like you). Guess what? They passed. You failed. Run along now. Play with your blocks. But be careful. They might be too educational.

Comments

  1. says

    This is what I find so mouth-wateringly ironic about the whole "Wedge Strategy".Their plan seems to be to make a series of small, gradual changes, over small intervals of time which will accumulate, over a much larger period of time, to effect a much larger change.Irony. Juicy, juicy irony.

  2. says

    I find it more freaking ironic that they actually formed a conspiracy to bury evidence and misseducate. I'm starting to suspect there's a correlation between fundamentalism and lack of imagination and sense of irony. It kind of make sense. If you believe only in literal interpretation than at least one definition of irony is alien to you. Maybe growing up with that during development has literally blinded some people to the phenomena.

  3. says

    The TRUTH is that Dr. McLeroy and the SBOE have simply asked that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD be applied fairly and universally in the Science Classroom; in particular, they have ask that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD even be applied to two SACRED-COWS/RELIGIONS of the Liberal Democrats, namely, (1) Darwinian Evolution and (2) Global Warming.I don't think that term means what they think it means.

  4. says

    I don't think that term means what they think it means.That is about the fifth time this week I have seen a variation on that phrase used in a blog thread. It never gets old. It's so fraking hilarious, and I don't know why.(Yes, I know the reference. I laughed my ass off then too. But I still don't know why it's so damn funny.)

  5. says

    It's one of the reasons Mandy Patinkin is terribly underrated.However I think its funny because it highlights one of the largest problems of our time, the tendency of people to rape language over the desk to prove their point, over and over again. The problem is compounded by credulous fools who accept arguments by definition. One of the things that infuriate me is when some guy who thinks he's clever tries to redefine what my position is by selectively playing mix 'n' match with dictionary definitions and then clutching on their straw man with tooth and nail.(If some of you noticed that my use of 'rape' also falls into this category, it was placed there to show that I do have a sense of irony)

  6. says

    Martin, I am a big fan but there is one area in your posts lately that I would like to criticize.Your use of words like "frakkin'". Is that really needed? We are all adults here, we all know what word you'd like to use here and I see no reason at all for the self censorship.Every time I see it I'm reminded of hearing "not-quite" swear words constantly while growing up in a very religious family in the heart of Utah.In my opinion it taints the article with religious shades that don't belong.I'm sure you have already, but take a look at Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on swearing.I'm understand I'm a little sensitive to words like that however.Thanks for all your work and efforts on the show, and the blog.

  7. says

    The 'f-word' has long since lost its controversial value, so there is no real reason to prefer it from other invective. It gives the word more power than its worth. Personally I like 'frakkin', it is as emotional as 'fuckin' and will still use smeghead instead of dickhead. To return this thread on topic, I hereby apply all invective in my post to the frakkin' smegheaded asshats that support MacLeroy.(it is funnily apropos that my word verification word is 'prock')

  8. says

    Your use of words like "frakkin'". Is that really needed? We are all adults here, we all know what word you'd like to use here and I see no reason at all for the self censorship.Perhaps I am wrong, but I always read Martin's use of this term as a tribute to PZ Myer's usage of the term during the Eucharist "It's a Frackin' Cracker" desecration episode last year.I make this association because in my little part of the world, I don't recall Frackin/Frakkin being a common substitution for "fucking" before PZ used it (in fact, I don't ever remember hearing this term before this use — but my life tends to be resplendent with swearing thus sheltered from the polite world of such euphemism). Was Frackin (or Frakkin) in wide use in the rest of the English-speaking world prior to PZ's expression? (I usually hear "friggin" — which I agree with Adam — it's a stupid case of self-censorship…but "Frakkin" still makes me chuckle when I read it).

  9. says

    Was Frackin (or Frakkin) in wide use in the rest of the English-speaking world prior to PZ's expression?Yes, from Battlestar Galactica as already mentioned. Jeff Dee used it on The Non-Prophets years ago.

  10. says

    I always liked asshat. I know Matt is trying to distance himself from asshat, but I think he should embrace it. Maybe make it like the secret word. Whenever someone says asshat, sirens go off and people scream real loud…Ok, that may be a little too far, but still, it was always funny hearing Matt call someone an asshat. It triggered a Pavlovian response saying "Pay close attention to this next part. Matt's going to rip someone a new one"

  11. Barnetto says

    "Friggin" is not self censorship. The word has its own illustrious history. I was reading the diary of a victorian guy and he used it in the following sense:to masturbatehttp://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/frig?view=ukwith the original meaning before that being "to rub, chafe"Although if you look up other dictionary definitions you'll see that they sometimes apply it exclusively to female masturbation.I think this is why my mom reacted so strongly to the word when I used it as a kid. She made no effort to explain the meaning to me. It *seems* censorious, but it isn't.

  12. Martin says

    I must say this is the first time I've ever gotten criticism over my profanities not being strong enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>