The cure for cults that want to deny others their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech -- Fredric Rice

Ah, here we have a good one. The ICR cult likes to try to pretend that the fact of evolution some how has something to say about racism and the superiority or inferiority of species. Horribly amusingly, the cult tries to base such bizarre notions on their equally bizarre belief that males and females of the same species are in fact different species.

Let's take a look at how the creationist cult manages to present their unusual argument in an examination of the propaganda piece titled, "Darwin's Teaching of Women's Inferiority."

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

The racism of evolution theory has been documented well and widely publicized.

-=- End quoted text in extract

"...well documented..." Among creationist nutters, perhaps. Out in academia, however, the fact of evolution is opinion neutral. Facts exist on their own merit and whatever opinions one forms about facts has nothing to say for or against that fact. Perhaps what the nut is complaining about is the fact that ignorant people have a history of misusing scientific truths to forward their own agendas. At the same time, however, such misuse doesn't detract from the truth of said facts.

The ICR cult allegedly has a poster on one of their walls trying to depict the fact of evolution as if it were a philosophical ideology rather than a fact of physical nature. How nutty can they get? I would expect them to also try to depict the physical fact of gravity as if it were a philosophical ideology if, in fact, they were at all honest with themselves.

Amusingly we get treated to a quote by Charles Darwin:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

.. Darwin listed the advantages of marrying, which included: "...constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with -- better than a dog anyhow -- Home, and someone to take care of house..."

-=- End quoted text in extract

And that, dear friends, means that the directly observed fact of evolution doesn't happen some how. Why the ICR cult seems to feel that women _aren't_ "better than a dog" seems to speak volumes; more so when one looks at the horribly anti-women mythologies this bizarre cult worships.

I'm fondly reminded of another cult -- the "Promise Keeper" cult -- that abuses the classical Christanic mythologies to the extent that the ICR cult does to forward their own anti-woman, anti-gay agenda.

Let's see... The ICR cult goes on at length listing some of the now quaint social beliefs of the past, attempting, it looks like, to try to pretend that evolution doesn't happen some how. It almost looks as if the ICR cult has confused the fact of evolution with the social beliefs of Westernized males during Darwin's life time. And I suspect that the confusion is deliberate. Indeed, the ICR cult offers this bizarre statement:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning...

-=- End quoted text in extract

As if Darwin had "followers." As if Charles Darwin was some kind of a cult leader rather than a scientist who codified what was already well known long before Darwin came along: that species evolve.

The ICR cult wants to try to pretend that not only is the observed phenomena of speciation some how "racist" and "anti-women" but that people who accept what their own senses and reason tell them about the evolution of species some how constitutes some kind of cult which has "followers."

I suspect the cult's hope is that some day someone will believe their assertions that evolution is some how an "atheist religion" and as such the State is violating the Constitutional dictates against the establishment of cults. The ICR cult would love to be able to point to existing violations, I'm sure, and then demand that their cult be given "equal time" so that they can also violate the Constitutional dictates of the seporation of church from State.

What's interesting is that the cult has no problem understanding various _theories_ put forth to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution. Further on down in this propaganda piece we read:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Darwin taught that human sex differences were due partly to sexual selection, specifically because men must prove themselves physically and intellectually superior to other men in the competition for women...

-=- End quoted text in extract

Which is in fact true except that we find that the intelligence of males is less of a selection criteria among females which carry the same level of intelligence as the available pool of males they choose from.

In other words given a population of primates with a spectrum of intelligence exhibited among each member, and females with a lower exhibition of intelligence traits will not select mates based upon intelligence.

In all, however, the ICR cult seems to find this notion to some how be anti-woman. Let's see how they proceed to flesh out this bizarre notion:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

... whereas women must be superior primarily in sexual attraction. Darwin used examples of cultures that require the men to fight competitors to retain their wives to support this conclusion. Because "the strongest party always carries off the prize," the result is that "a weak man, unless he be a good hunter...is seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice..."

-=- End quoted text in extract

Here we find nothing at all wrong with Charles Darwins' observation. Primatologists are fully aware of the stratification of Alpha and Beta males among primate populaces. The ICR cult apparently has yet to discover apes, moneys, chimps, or, in fact, their own species (assuming that creationists acknowledge the fact that they're also primates.) And yet the ICR cult offers this as if it some how adversely impacted the directly observed fact of evolution. The cult offers this as if it was some how racist or anti-women ideology.

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Other examples Darwin uses to illustrate his conclusion that evolutionary forces caused men to be superior to women...

-=- End quoted text in extract

And in fact Darwin did no such thing. Creationist cultists like to try to pretend that there's a concept involving evolution wherein there's a notion called "higher" and "lower" when describing life forms. Creationist cults like to pretend that evolution some how classifies species by order of "inferior" and "superior" and the bizarre notion seems to be held deliberately among creationists.

In fact evolutionary theories which attempt to explain the observed facts of evolution are opinion-neutral. Aside from the fact that the males of a species are of the same species as the females -- something the ICR cult seems to forget from time to time when it suits their bizarre occultism -- the spectrum of theories of evolution describe whether a species is more or less ecologically capable of surviving in a given environment than another given species.

Evolutional theories don't claim that one species is "superior" than another species. The ability to survive an environment says nothing about superiority or inferiority. That's a creationist strawman claim which they doubtlessly hope their followers will burn.

Creationists are forced to observe that plants and animals survive in environments that are suited for them. Creationists are forced to note that plants and animals which get introduced into environments that aren't suitable for them struggle to survive and often die out.

Rather than accept what _science_ tells them is the reason for what their senses are telling them, creationists pretend that what they're observing is what their deity constructs created. Some how, after the "flood of ignorance" they play pretend with, all of the plants and animals on Noah's magical seed pod (in the original myth it was a seed pod before the Gilgamesh epic modified it) some how walked, flew, or crawled their way from where the seed pod landed to where their environmen would allow them to survive.

Science has the answers. Creationists have delusional occultism. Creationists also have straw man arguments, lies, self deception, and willful ignorance on their side however such a tool box doesn't save them. Science always wins out over ignorance -- which is why these bizarre cultists have been unable to get their occult notions taught as fact in public schools any longer than it takes for citizens to find out about it and put an abrupt stop to the abuse.

Case in point:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Obviously, Darwin totally ignored the influence of culture, the environment, social roles, and the relatively few opportunities that existed in his day, as well as historically, for both men and women.

-=- End quoted text in extract

And yet that doesn't stop the cult from using the pandemic social beliefs of the time to try to pretend that that means the fact of evolution doesn't happen some how. That's at least consistant with the cult's continued acceptance of the profound ignorance of the savages which penned the classical Christanic mythologies.

Science, however, progresses and the social notions of the past morph into the social notions of the present. Superstitious occultism, on the other hand, stays rooted in the ignorance of the past. While the rest of the world moves on and progresses, creationists cling to the demonstrably ignorant notions of savages who -- like their contemporary ideologically-grounded brothers and sisters -- couldn't accept what their own senses and reason told them.

Finally the cult gets around to stuffing words into Darwin's mouth:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

The conclusion that women are evolutionarily inferior to men is at the core of Darwin's major contribution to evolutionary theory...

-=- End quoted text in extract

And in fact nothing Darwin codified about the facts of evolution ever claims that women are "inferior" to men. If Darwin made such a social comment, the directly observed fact of evolution remains.

Then we get to even more blatant stupidity:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

Women's inferiority -- a fact taken for granted by most scientists in the 1800s -- was a major proof of evolution by natural selection. Gould claims that there were actually "few egalitarian scientists" at this time. Almost all believed that "Negroes and women" were intellectually inferior. These scientists were not repeating prejudices without extensive work and thought; they were attempting to verify this major plank in evolution theory by trying to prove, scientifically, that women were inferior.

-=- End quoted text in extract

And in fact evolution has nothing to say about either superiority or inferiority. The cult tries to stuff some words into Gould's mouth while they're at it, too. Then the cult glibly concludes that social beliefs of the past some how "form planks" in some "evolution theory." Setting aside the fact that theories attempting to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution don't detract from the fact of what's observed, social notions adopted and rejected down through the centuries don't factor into sciences -- _any_ science.

The ICR cult then continues to go on at length trying to make a case that evolution some how has something to say about the intelligence of women. We see willful deception being applied as the cultist attempts to paint a picture without paint. Let's see if the cultist eventually gets around to changing the record...

No, the cult ends on the same tired note:

-- Begin quoted text in extract -=-

She argues that the prominent evolutionary view that women are biologically inferior to men must be challenged, and in this and scores of other works that preceded her, dozens of writers have adroitly overturned the conclusion that women are biologically inferior to men, and, by so doing, have undermined a major plank in evolutionism.

-=- End quoted text in extract

If the cult can find any scientist speaking within his or her venue which suggests that evolution some how dictates that women are "biologically inferior to men," the cult should have included some references. In fact the theories which seek to explain and describe the observed facts of evolution have nothing to say one way or another as to whether women, men, or species are superior or inferior to another.

After reviewing this cult propaganda one's left with the firm conviction that the Creationist cult has no idea what evolution is and what evolution is not. One's then left wondering what, exactly, this freakish cult wants to have taught in the public schools and within colleges.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson

"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need to.
Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.