Here’s a little comic from the creationist hub that is Answers in Genesis, and as you can see, the cartoonist seems deeply confused as to what believing in science actually means. He seems to think so long as you use technology in your every day life, you must somehow be a strong believer in the principles of science. By that logic, even a caveman using a lighter is “pro science”.

For most modern creationists, science is a relationship of convenience; they like things like antibiotics, automobiles, lasers, and computers, even though they reject any scientific findings which contradict their pre-supposed conclusions. As soon as they hear something they don’t like, or that puts their paper thin arguments to the test, they instantly reject/ignore  it. This is precisely WHY they are accused of not believing in science, they pick and choose what they like, and attack any findings that question their stupid beliefs about the origins of the Universe.

This comic highlights the serious difficulty secularists face when trying to argue the merits of science with creationists: they have absolutely no idea the science needed to create things such as antibiotics or microwaves instantly disproves their childish idea God created the Earth and all the animals some 6000 years ago.

Meanwhile, these people enjoy the luxuries of our ever increasing scientific understanding of the natural world while simultaneously undermining it with the annoying insistence that only the supernatural can explain the complexity of life. It’s not necessary to “believe” in science to benefit from it; after all, the vaccines I got as a child to protect me from measles and other deadly viruses worked, despite my ignorance.

So don’t pat yourselves on the back for benefiting from the advances in science, dear creationists, and don’t start thinking simply because you live in the information age, you’re automatically well informed. You aren’t, and it shows.

How many killers have proudly flaunted the fact that their crimes were the result of their religious convictions? It’s honestly too numerous to count, but every time such a tragedy occurs, you don’t see anyone blaming Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or other religious leaders. That doesn’t stop ignorant writers like Dennis Sewell, who have a clear interest in attacking evolution, from blaming everything they can on Charles Darwin:

In America, where Darwin’s writings on morality and race have come under particularly intense critical scrutiny because of the enduring creationist debate, he has been accused of fostering moral nihilism and scientific racism, and even of promoting an ethic that found its ultimate expression in the Holocaust. Most startling of all, a connection has now been drawn between Darwin’s theories and a rash of school shootings.

Actually, the only one making this connection is the author of the piece, who seems convinced, like all creationist morons, that Darwin was somehow responsible for the Holocaust, racism, and just about every terrible atrocity you can think of. You would think humans had never committed mass genocide before Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The religious right is very good at building straw men and then tearing them down mercilessly. Darwin is one of their favorite scapegoats, and it’s not too difficult to imagine why; they fear science, and most of all the implications of natural selection. We are still the only species on this planet that refuses to accept its place in the tree of life (admittedly, we are also the only ones capable of doing so). We are apes, and no amount of kicking and screaming will change that fact. Deal with it.

The basics of evolution are much more accessible and are taught in every high school, so it should not be surprising that Darwin seems to be emerging as the inspiration for the more dim-witted schoolboy sociopath.

It seems as though the author is trying to make the conclusion teaching evolution is bad, because a few disturbed people have twisted the theory to fit their own psychopathic beliefs. Well, if we have to get rid of “dangerous” ideas, why are we allowing texts like the Bible, which condones, slavery, genocide, rape, infanticide, and the murder of adulterers and homosexuals, to exist?

This entire article tries to paint Darwin as a crusty racist who wanted the extermination of other humans. In actual fact, had this fucking scumbag bothered to read The Origin of Species, he would have remarked that Darwin himself did not advocate Natural Selection for human beings. He saw the laws of nature as entirely savage and inhuman, and he was a staunch abolitionist. Of course, there’s no reason to believe the author cares about the truth, let alone journalistic integrity, although it’s nothing compared to his flawed understanding of history:

…Truths that the founders of the United States had held to be self-evident — that all men are created equal and had certain inalienable rights — were being denied by the promoters of Darwinian science. By the end of the first World War, it was not only blacks who were deemed genetically inferior by many of America’s top geneticists and biologists, but Italian, Greek and Jewish immigrants too.

Has this fucking guy ever read a history book? Was he not aware the Founding Fathers had black slaves? Does he really think the inequity of race relations is entirely the product of Darwinian theory? It’s quite obvious these prejudices existed long before we knew all life shared a common ancestor. Natural Selection means we are all related, and anyone who twists this idea is not a true scientist, but rather, like the author, someone interested in furthering their own agenda.

This shitty writer leaves us with this closing thought:

The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called “Darwinism” — and the interpretation the teenage nihilists put on it — are as much part of the Darwin story as the theory of evolution

So, he’s assuming a few teenagers who kill indiscriminately is as much a story about one of the most fundamental scientific theories in mankind’s history? Is he fucking serious? Look buddy, there will always be disturbed people who hijack an idea or ideology without properly understanding it. You’re proof that there is still a lot of learning that needs to be done from the general population concerning not only Natural Selection, but also the man behind the idea, Darwin. No, he did not “invent” the Holocaust, eugenics (that was actually his cousin, Francis Galton), slavery or racism. Stop trying to paint this brilliant (and like all humans, flawed) human being as some kind of monster. Why don’t you address the relative truth of his arguments rather than making outlandish accusations that aren’t based on any facts. For anyone interested in punishing themselves, check out this author’s latest book, which is like this article, except 320 pages long. Enjoy your torture!

If you’ve been living under a rock, or have only recently tuned in to the ‘webs’, you may not be aware of the Creation Museum, a 27 million dollar tribute to ignorance. Over half a million people have been ‘taught’ that the earth is only 6000 years old, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted peacefully in the Garden of Eden. The exhibits involve complex animatronic robots and sophisticated equipment meant to awe and inspire visitors.

The museum itself is perhaps one of the greatest embarrassments in the world. It’s a testament to the fact we are still a long way away from being educated as a populace. It seems some people love religion so much they demand the world fit into the narrow confines of their beliefs. The true purpose of the museum is obvious once the tour nears its end. There patrons become witness to a ‘world without god’, which involves a bored teenager looking at a computer screen, and another watching a TV. Watch out parents, this could be your children!

Now the museum had a corporate partner, and it’s none other than giant Coca-Cola Inc. It seems that the thirsty, uneducated masses that make their way through the museum will be offered their product exclusively. According to the site, they’ve been partnered up with the company for a while now, but they have since made it official.

From a corporate standpoint, I can’t really find too much fault in that one. Coke wasn’t founded by scientific ideologues, and they are in the business of selling a product. At the same time, however, it’s also at our discretion to abandon a product that lends its name to such intellectual dishonesty. If you were a Coke fan, you may want to develop a taste for fruit juice instead; it’s better for you anyways.

So is it fitting that a drink that rots your teeth is a corporate sponsor to a museum that rots your brain? I think so.