The notoriously bizarre Institute for Creation Research (sic) cult
routinely publishes equally bizarre religious notions which they wish to
pretend are some how scientific. This text file takes some of the cult's
own bizarre publications and takes a look at them in extract to show just
how nutty (verging on the insane) these "Modern Day Flat Earth
Society" nuts actually are.
Copyright by The Skeptic Tank, 2002, all rights reserved. Permission is
granted to disseminate this criticism freely provided no fees or costs are
associated with the document's free distribution among academia and the lay
public.
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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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 -=-
-=- 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.
The racism of evolution theory has been documented
well and widely publicized.
.. 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..."
Many of Darwin's followers accepted this reasoning...
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...
... 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..."
Other examples Darwin uses to illustrate his conclusion that
evolutionary forces caused men to be superior to women...
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.
The conclusion that women are evolutionarily inferior
to men is at the core of Darwin's major contribution to
evolutionary theory...
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.
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.
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.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank