“The Future of Our Planet is in Peril in Part Because of Those Who Deny Its Past.”

You know, creationists wouldn’t bother me a bit if they were like UFO chasers, or Bigfoot hunters, or any of a number of other (mostly) harmless groups with odd beliefs. I wouldn’t bother debunking their bloody stupid textbooks if they were a small bunch of powerless doofuses running around babbling about a really old book, and talking nonsense. They wouldn’t trouble me. But they’re brainwashing hundreds of thousands of kids. They’ve got political power, and have an entire party dancing to their reality-denying tune. They’re useful idiots for the Koch brothers and corporations who would prefer to pollute without all those pesky regulations. And it’s not just an anti-evolution, delusions about the age of the earth problem. These folks are happy to let the planet burn to death, because they’re certain it’s all according to their asshole god’s plan:

In semi-related news, it really would be excellent if we could get creationists to stop using oil, and they’re not going to do it because of global warming. The same people who think the earth is less than 10,000 years old generally think it has less than a century left to go, and that climate change is just the natural process of the Earth getting back to normal after the Flood. Those are two pretty powerful reasons to be complacent about climate change, and they probably represent the most obvious way creationism is a threat to civilisation. The future of our planet is in peril in part because of those who deny its past.

Read all of Jonny’s post and the post he links. I love the “Hey, creationists, find me oil!” challenge. And there’s excellent techniques for countering creationist nonsense in there. I’m happy to say that both articles were, in a sense, inspired by my own post pointing to Donald Wise’s ideas and going, “Hells to the yes, let’s do this!”

Image shows an oil derrick at sunset. Caption says, "All right, creationists! Go find oil using your 'science.'"
Public domain photo by Eric Kounce. Caption by moi.

 

I’m afraid to say it’ll probably be an exercise in frustration – I mean, Ken Ham thinks tabloids are science journals, so when you insist they provide you peer-reviewed evidence backing up their claims, they’re probably going to hand you a bunch of useless shit and then run away screaming victory. Don’t worry, this isn’t for their benefit. We won’t be able to change minds like Ham’s. But when you keep dumping their shit back on them and insisting they return with evidence, there are plenty of bystanders who will have a flash of realization.

And, hey, on the wild chance the creationists can come up with real, solid science proving all their nonsense is true, we’ll have discovered something new and exciting about the world. Then we can start exploring ways to defeat their asshole god, because really, that guy’s an omnicidal jerk. We’ll have to hope that Preacher is more instruction manual than entertainment. Where’s the Saint of Killers these days?

{advertisement}
“The Future of Our Planet is in Peril in Part Because of Those Who Deny Its Past.”
{advertisement}

8 thoughts on ““The Future of Our Planet is in Peril in Part Because of Those Who Deny Its Past.”

  1. rq
    1

    I’m afraid the only peer-review they need is the Word of Gawd, and all that needs is a passing verbal reference. Done!
    Frankly, I’m afraid of these people not because I’m in the US or planning on living there anytime soon, but because there’s a certain segment of the political population here who believes that they’re the best example around.
    I can only hope that the proximity of the rest of Europe can somehow stave off the worst of it (so far, the climate science seems to be getting through, but the equal and abortion rights bits, not so much).

  2. 2

    Speaking of hyperchristians imperiling the planet, the anti-contraception/abortion rights crusade resulting from the combination of their misogyny and pro-natalism has not only killed and wrecked the lives of countless women, it has contributed mightily to the global overpopulation which threatens everything from California’s water reserves to crashing oceanic ecosystems to tropical rain forests to climatic equilibrium to …

  3. 3

    One thing I find annoying about creationists is that they’re wrong by their own theology. They claim the universe was created by God and admit that the Bible was written by humans. They reject their god’s universe for the human-produced Bible. They don’t realize that this is disrespectful to the god they supposedly worship.

  4. 4

    With 22% of the Us population expecting the end of the world in their lifetime is it suprising. It has been a feature of Christianity since its foundation that large portions of it think the world will end in their lifetime (2000 years). If you don’t expect the world to last past say 2050 they why worry about extrapolations past 2100?
    Also one of the core teachings the Sermon on the Mount says to take no thought for the morrow because it will take care of itself. Of course sometimes I think their are groups that think god needs a little help bringing on the end of world.

  5. 232
    5

    Get a grip, Dana. Take deep breaths.

    When you start foaming at the mouth about religion…
    Wait! You never stop.
    …anyway, don’t allow your emotions to spill over to other things.

    :

    * “have an entire party dancing to their reality-denying tune”:
    Do you not realize that the Republican party is not in fact all religiots, nor controlled by them? Or were you talking about the Democrat party? Maybe you’ve heard of the Tea Party.

    * “They’re useful idiots for the Koch brothers and corporations who would prefer to pollute without all those pesky regulations.”:
    o Trotting out the Koch brothers is one of the last refuges for Progressives who don’t have any actual arguments.
    o Everything that separates you from cave(wo)men was produced by individuals who would prefer that production not be hamstrung by people who think that Man is a plague upon the planet.

    * “happy to let the planet burn to death”:
    burn to death??? Your hyperbole just left orbit.
    What we have here is a bunch of “scientists”, (nearly) all of whom were funded by government, which is in complete agreement with the warmthers that what we need is more government to control individuals.

    Wipe the spittle off, and try talking with someone outside of your inner circle.

  6. 6

    Do you not realize that the Republican party is not in fact all religiots, nor controlled by them?

    No, we don’t “realize” that, because it’s simply not true. The Republican agenda is pure old-time-reich-wing religion, and has been so since 1980. Yes, there’s also a purely pro-business wing, but they don’t counter the religious agenda, they support it.

    Maybe you’ve heard of the Tea Party.

    Yes, they’re the Republican base in silly costumes — and no one goes anywhere in the GOP without pandering to them.

    Everything that separates you from cave(wo)men was produced by individuals who would prefer that production not be hamstrung by people who think that Man is a plague upon the planet.

    Where’s your evidence that everyone who produces anything shares exactly the same opinions on any issue?

    What we have here is a bunch of “scientists”, (nearly) all of whom were funded by government, which is in complete agreement with the warmthers that what we need is more government to control individuals.

    Well, yeah, we know that government regulation works, and is sometimes necessary. That’s why we have things like cops and a central banking system. We don’t exactly need government-funded anything to see this. Pretending to be ignorant of such a long-obvious fact doesn’t exactly make you sound intelligent.

    (Oh, and the correct denialist epithet is “warmists,” not “warmthers.” You’d know this if you kept up on your blather-points.)

  7. rq
    7

    If you’re what’s outside of the inner circle, I’m staying inside, thank you. If you haven’t yet made the connection between creationists, christians and Republican policy, you’re a little too far out for me.

    Everything that separates you from cave(wo)men was produced by individuals who would prefer that production not be hamstrung by people who think that Man is a plague upon the planet.

    I didn’t know regulations on pollution and emissions and suchlike were the equivalent of hamstringing production. Huh. I guess no other country or business in the world anywhere ever tried to regulate any of its production, ever, esp. pollution-wise. Just *zip* went out of business, once all those regulations were in place. Huh.
    Also, the little bolded word? Yeah. There’s a certain kind of Man who is a plague upon the planet: White, usually older but no necessarily so, conservative, relatively wealthy, with strong sexist leanings, and Republican. Or libertarian, sometimes that, too. I’m thinkin’ you tick several of those boxes, if not all of them.

  8. 8

    Do you not realize that the Republican party is not in fact all religiots, nor controlled by them?

    This alone identifies you as either as fool or a liar. No serious Republican candidate for the Presidency can now admit to accepting evolutionary biology or its cognate sciences.

    Trotting out the Koch brothers is one of the last refuges for Progressives who don’t have any actual arguments.

    I notice you haven’t presented any actual arguments, just baseless assertions, as is the habit of the raving right. The extensive Koch funding of far-right political actiivty is detailed in many places, including here

    What we have here is a bunch of “scientists”, (nearly) all of whom were funded by government, which is in complete agreement with the warmthers that what we need is more government to control individuals.

    Ah, clearly you’re both a fool and a liar. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is practically universal among relevant experts – who are scientists, not “scientists”. Of course the fossil fuel industry and far-right ideologues are completely at liberty to fund research that could challenge this consensus – but they seldom do so, because they know well enough, despite claims by the latter to the contrary, that the scientific consensus is sound (the main oil companies have given up pretending anthropogenic climate change isn’t happening, although to continuing to oppose effective action to halt it). The one serious attempt by a climate change sceptic with real credentials to challenge the consensus on evidential grounds – the “Berkeley Earth” study led by Richard Muller, lauded in advance by denialists like you – ended up agreeing with the consensus, whereupon denialists turned on their erstwhile hero.

Comments are closed.