On some primitive gut level you’d expect to be oddly satisfied by your own superiority, and amusedly angry at bad logic. But here’s what made me change my thinking pattern.
In college, I came across this (self-reportedly) highly-acclaimed web site of creationist science. On the front page, complete with pictures, were abstracts of young kids from a creationist science fair. There was this one girl, 6-8 year old, whose project was essentially this: She poured clean water into jars, prayed to God for six days not to create life, and at the end of six days she presented the jar as evidence against evolution. Her abstract was written with such moving sincerity, that it turned my stomach how anyone could do that to her.
EDIT: My memory of a house cat failed me (quite predictably). Thanks, David_Gerard. The blurb I actually read was most probably:
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life—carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
(Note: I have not played this game since it is rated “M” and isn’t allowed on the Fellowship U campus, so I am basing this mini-review on Secular media reports.) … You play John Marston, a former murderer and horse thief, who must redeem himself for his evil ways by killing his former gang members, as well as US Army soldiers, Indians, Mexican soldiers, Mexican villagers, and the last remaining buffalo. Uh, guys, that’s not how redemption works! … Red Dead “Redemption” is not about redemption and has no redeeming qualities, so I give it ZERO CROSSES.
Left 4 Dead:
What few realize is that this modern concept of zombies was created by anti-Christians as propaganda against the real biblical phenomenon of bodily resurrection of the dead. Jesus has promised us that when He returns, He will raise all our dead bodies and make them better than new so that we can live forever bodily in His Kingdom on New Earth. The so-called “zombie apocalypse” common in Secular fiction, where mortal humans must fight off zombie hoards, is really an attempt to scare the unsaved into rejecting their resurrected family and friends after His return (nearly every zombie story pointedly includes a scene where a character is forced to destroy the animated body of a loved one).
Amid complaint that the satirical articles and the scientific publications were not distinguishable, the satirical articles were printed upside down in the back half of the W.R.D. along with a topsy turvy back cover. In 1966, the title was changed to the Journal of Biological Psychology in an effort to make the publication more accessible to the scientific community[2].
I remember spending days trying to decide, when it first came out, whether their kidz page was parody or not. I ultimately decided that it probably was, but I was not at all confident, and changed my mind several times along the way.
For ages the guy behind Objective Ministries contributed to Conservapedia as “Dr Richard Paley”. Thus: not even actual fundamentalists can tell what’s real fundamentalism and what’s a parody.
I remember spending days trying to decide, when it first came out, whether their kidz page was parody or not. I ultimately decided that it probably was, but I was not at all confident, and changed my mind several times along the way.
The “Creation Science Fun Facts” game seems to be fairly conclusive… Or is it?
Yeah, basically what kept happening was something would tip me over the threshold of suspension of disbelief, and I would conclude it was parody, then time would pass and I would think about it and feel less certain of that conclusion, and I’d look at it again and some different thing would tip me over the threshold, lather, rinse, repeat. There was no question of its absurdity, merely of whether it was deliberate absurdity.
She poured clean water into jars, prayed to God for six days not to create life, and at the end of six days she presented the jar as evidence against evolution. Her abstract was written with such moving sincerity, that it turned my stomach how anyone could do that to her.
I’d have been particularly impressed if she gave a ballpark evaluation of exactly how much evidence it is against evolution. Saying that at a science fair would take balls—pick the right number and the creationists and third rate scientists will be fighting each other over who gets to lynch you.
Profound sadness, would be my answer.
On some primitive gut level you’d expect to be oddly satisfied by your own superiority, and amusedly angry at bad logic. But here’s what made me change my thinking pattern.
In college, I came across this (self-reportedly) highly-acclaimed web site of creationist science. On the front page, complete with pictures, were abstracts of young kids from a creationist science fair. There was this one girl, 6-8 year old, whose project was essentially this: She poured clean water into jars, prayed to God for six days not to create life, and at the end of six days she presented the jar as evidence against evolution. Her abstract was written with such moving sincerity, that it turned my stomach how anyone could do that to her.
EDIT: My memory of a house cat failed me (quite predictably). Thanks, David_Gerard. The blurb I actually read was most probably:
Uh, Objective Ministries appears to have Poed you. You can relax a bit.
Their review of Portal is great.
Their review of Red Dead Redemption is better:
Left 4 Dead:
Thanks for the Poe concept.
Just to show that this isn’t just a problem with fundamentalism....
The Worm Runners Digest:
I remember spending days trying to decide, when it first came out, whether their kidz page was parody or not. I ultimately decided that it probably was, but I was not at all confident, and changed my mind several times along the way.
They are kind of brilliant.
For ages the guy behind Objective Ministries contributed to Conservapedia as “Dr Richard Paley”. Thus: not even actual fundamentalists can tell what’s real fundamentalism and what’s a parody.
The “Creation Science Fun Facts” game seems to be fairly conclusive… Or is it?
Got that right!
The ‘match the husbands and wives’ game breaks suspension of disbelief for me.. as I have no doubt it is supposed to
Yeah, basically what kept happening was something would tip me over the threshold of suspension of disbelief, and I would conclude it was parody, then time would pass and I would think about it and feel less certain of that conclusion, and I’d look at it again and some different thing would tip me over the threshold, lather, rinse, repeat. There was no question of its absurdity, merely of whether it was deliberate absurdity.
I’m not sure what finally convinced me stably.
I’d have been particularly impressed if she gave a ballpark evaluation of exactly how much evidence it is against evolution. Saying that at a science fair would take balls—pick the right number and the creationists and third rate scientists will be fighting each other over who gets to lynch you.