TSoA: Chapter 3: EVIL-ution

During Murphy’s phone conversation with Our Isis, Shari takes the opportunity to run out of the room in a snit.  Turns out that all the lying and manipulating and plying-with-puppies had distracted Shari from what was really on her mind: an argument with her “boyfriend,” Paul Wallach.

Yes, Paul Wallach, Poor Little Rich Boy turned Poor Little Poor Boy from Babylon Rising, is still with Shari.

Why?  Hell, I dunno.  Self-destructive tendencies?  Low self-esteem?  (Remember, his daddy never hugged him enough, and never took little Paul to church.)

This whole relationship just bugs the hell outta me.  Paul, from the beginning, was interested in and attracted to Shari.  Shari, however, only ever seems to see him as a conversion prospect.  To add insult to injury, when Paul accepts her invitation to church, it just so happens to be the evening that THE CHURCH IS BOMBED, injuring Paul to the point that he is in a coma for days.

And then Shari is a total jerk to him as he recovers.

And yeah, I can see how a guy with really low self-esteem, who has never known real nurturing and has no other family or friends (remember that he transferred to Preston just that semester, so he hasn’t had time to make new friends) would cling to this relationship long after it should have been declared dead in the water.  “She took care of me!  She must love me, even though we disagree on almost everything and she doesn’t respect me at all!”

Poor sap.

I mean, we know why Shari is sticking with this relationship—Paul hasn’t said the Magic Words and become a full RTC yet.

In fact, he’s dancing with the devil.

Worse yet, he is CONSORTING WITH ATHEISTS

“I don’t know who he’s been talking to, but he’s been reading some books.  He keeps quoting someone called Dawkins.”

Wait…Paul has been betraying his Good Christian Girlfriend by reading the writings of Richard Dawkins???

image

I KNOW, RIGHT???

And undoubtedly he has been “talking to” people.  You know how those perfidious atheists are, talking to people … writing books.

(And I find the other implication of the “who he’s been talking to” line to be very creepy—that Shari seems to think that Paul should be socializing with ABSOLUTELY NOBODY AT COLLEGE EXCEPT HER.  Seriously, very disturbing idea.)

And it’s all the work of Satan, no doubt about that.

“He had a copy of Darwin’s The Origin of Species…”

That’s On the Origin of Species, Shari.  Since this is your Most Despised Work and all, you may want to know the actual title.

Okay, before we get into the meat of Shari’s arguments (so to speak), let me express my doubt that Shari would call The Evil One “someone called Dawkins.”  Going to the church she goes to, working for the guy she works for, Shari would no doubt be well-versed in RTC propaganda about Richard Dawkins and his lies (LIES, I TELLS YA) about evil-ution.

To the “meat”!

“I mentioned that my research into the early pioneers of evolution showed that many of them were simply trying to force science to fit in with their preconceived view that God didn’t exist.  So they came up with this theory that species somehow transformed themselves into other species, in order to take God out of the equation.  Yet not one valid transitional fossil has ever been found, despite claims to the contrary.  And with the discovery of the DNA code, which actually prevents one organism from changing into another organism, the theory of evolution today is in shambles…Although I doubt you’ll hear too many evolutionists admit it, especially after all the trouble they’ve gone through to get it taught in schools.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: The Gish Gallop.

So, since we have Shari’s official Gallop here, let’s take the points one at a time:

I mentioned that my research into the early pioneers of evolution showed that many of them were simply trying to force science to fit in with their preconceived view that God didn’t exist.

Hmmm…early pioneers of evolution, eh?

Like Etienne Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire, a deist?  Like Asa Gray?  Yeah, I can tell you’ve done oodles of research, Shari.  What did this “research” consists of: a conversation with your pastor?

(Oh, and as for Darwin himself, although he became a self-described agnostic later in life, his religious views were complicated and changed many times throughout his life.  He could hardly be described as someone with a “preconceived view that God [doesn’t] exist.”)

So they came up with this theory that species somehow transformed themselves into other species, in order to take God out of the equation.

But of course, creationists would never latch onto the “theory” of creationism because it allegedly squares with what the Bible tells them.  No, sirree.

Yet not one valid transitional fossil has ever been found, despite claims to the contrary.

This is just lying bullshit on Shari’s part, unless you believe in Our Buck’s definition of a “transitional” form:

Here is a list of transitional fossils.  And check out Iron Chariots for more information on the apologetic “no transitional fossils” “argument.”

And with the discovery of the DNA code, which actually prevents one organism from changing into another organism, the theory of evolution today is in shambles…

Well, except for silly Christian scientists like Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and an Evangelical Christian, who points out that DNA is actually better evidence for evolution than fossils:

And it’s breathtaking that you can actually look now at the DNA sequence, which is a fossil record of its own, of an organism that we’re all descended from. And so are all the other mammals because we have enough evidence from today that we are able to look back through history to see what that must have looked like.

Maybe because I’m a geneticist and I’m particularly interested in genomes, but that is more interesting to me than having a fossil record of that individual common ancestor because the genome is much more detailed and gives you a richness of information about that organism. And we can do that. So that fills in a lot of the holes. Again, evolution may seem from the outside to have a lot of complexities and components and, certainly, lots of details—some of which we haven’t worked out—and for anybody to say there are no arguments would be a total mistake. There’s lots of stuff we don’t agree upon. But we do agree upon descent from a common ancestor, gradual change over a long period of time, and natural selection operating to produce the diversity of living species. There is no question that those are correct. Those are three cardinal pillars of Darwin’s theory that have been under-girded by data coming from multiple directions and they are not going to go away. Evolution is not a theory that is going to be discarded next week or next year or a hundred or a thousand years from now. It is true.

-Francis Collins, quoted at The BioLogos Forum, Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

So, frankly, I don’t know what Shari is on about with the “DNA disproves evolution” argument.  Unless, of course, she is still talking about crocoducks.

And honestly, creationists are in worse shape than I thought if crocoducks are their A-game.

Although I doubt you’ll hear too many evolutionists admit it, especially after all the trouble they’ve gone through to get it taught in schools.

Yeah, really!  Those silly evolutionists, trying to make sure that science is taught in SCIENCE CLASS.

And creationists never care about getting the Bible taught in science class!

Murphy responds to Shari’s Gallop as follows:

“That’s a great answer, Shari.  Paul’s still unsure of where he stands.”

1.  That is not a great answer.  It is just standard creationist anti-science.

2.  Murph has no idea if Paul is “unsure of where he stands” because Shari doesn’t tell Murphy what Paul said in response.  If Paul has been reading Dawkins and the original On the Origin of Species, I think the odds are pretty good that Paul had a better answer for Shari’s speechifying than, “Duh…”

And here is the point of the whole thing:

“Let’s wait and see what Isis McDonald can tell us about our little piece of wood.  If I’m right, it could open Paul’s eyes in a big way.”

This is the crux of the matter, the theme of the book: Noah’s Ark disproves EVIL-ution.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, Shari, those puppies aren’t going to housetrain themselves, you know.

Advertisements

Posted on June 2, 2012, in Babylon Rising, Books, The Secret on Ararat. Bookmark the permalink. 28 Comments.

  1. Why does everything have to distill down to biblical inerrancy? Perhaps a better way of putting it is, why are they so concerned about the factual elements of the legends within, rather than the philosophy contained within?

    Of course, there’s the little problem of WHICH books of the Tanakh one should concentrate on for philosophical edification. They weren’t composed all at once, after all, and I can expect quite a shift, for example, before and after contact with the Persians (of late, I’ve wondered if modern Judaism, at least in its Reform and Conservative editions, can be seen as Hebraicized Zoroastrianism–Kurash delivering the Hebrews from Babylonian captivity did lead to identifying Ahura Mazda as the same as Yhwh, mind.). Would Samuel, Nathan, Deborah, etc. really identify the religion practiced during the reign of Tiberius as their own, for instance? What would Moses and Josue make of Amos and Micah declaring (I think) that righteousness is acceptable without ritual, never mind the satire that is Jonah? Unfortunately, one gets the feeling that a good many RTCs think the Bible entire existed before even Satanel was created, that it ultimately works like a D&D symbol spell (in this case, symbol of piety). The thing they see as imperilled seems to be less biblical factuality than divine omnipotence…

  2. Wow, that line about forcing science to fit with their preconceived notions is some epic level projection.

    I think the odds are pretty good that Paul had a better answer for Shari’s speechifying than, “Duh…”
    Well, in RTC dreamland there are three responses to the above statements: “Wow, that makes absolute and complete sense!”, “Duh…”, and “YOU FILTHY CHRISTIAN BITCH, I HATE YOU, I HATE YOUR GOD!”. Given that she doesn’t have happy news that Paul is on their side and yet hasn’t put him on the irredeemably evil list*, I’d say he probably did say “Duh…”

    *Unofficially of course, we’re all sinners and god is very loving so officially no one is irredeemable, but you wouldn’t know from, say, the occasional mail the people at Dispatches from the Culture wars post. Those includes annoucement that their praying group will pray for all female members of the atheist organisation to get breast cancer.

    • PS: I do indeed find it interesting that we don’t get to hear Paul’s response. Of course LaHaye and Bob Phillips can’t think of any possible counter to this airtight argument. But I suspect we’re heading for an altar call ending where Paul becomes the latest drone, so he can’t convert before then. So, what now? The church ladies need to approve of Shari and Paul shacking up in the end so he can’t go on an anti-god tirade. He can’t convert and he can’t bring up counter arguments… So what is there left for him to say? “Duh..” probably covers it, but writing that down means the writers will have to go into the territory of why Paul isn’t evil for ignoring this revelation, not to mention why these great arguments have such a poor track record in the real world. They try to cover that with the ‘after they went through so much trouble to get it taught in class’-argument, but that can’t cover Paul since he’s too young to be part of that movement. So omitting Paul’s response was pretty much the only thing they could do.

      • Grammar Police

        . . . there is another option. Paul could get killed off and then Shari mourns him but finds comfort in knowing that since he never converted despite all her good efforts, then it’s better that she not be yoked with a nonbeliever.

        (apologies if the snark level hits critical in this)

  3. Rabukurafuto

    …the theory of evolution today is in shambles…

    I was waiting just for that line, one of the few things I remember from this book. Something these authors (as well as the Christian Right in general) fail to comprehend is that “theory of evolution” means that it has the most workable evidence of any current ideas on the origin of the species. It does not mean a “guess” like many people think “theory” means.

    • Grammar Police

      My dad is quite anti-evolution. (Not a RTC or anything, just doesn’t believe in it. Still not sure why) Anyway, we were having a discussion about evolution and he used the “it’s just a theory” argument.

      To which I said, “So is gravity. Gravity is ‘just a theory’. But you believe in gravity.” and then we went on a google search as to why gravity is a scientic theory and not a scientific law.

      I didn’t persuade him on evolution that day, but I don’t think he’ll ever use the “just a theory” argument again. Baby steps!

  4. My dad and I watched a program on anti-evolutionists… sheesh, over a decade ago now. He said, “anyone whose faith is so shaky that it can’t handle the truth had pretty weak faith to begin with.”

    Yep.

  5. Only duly qualified pastors are allowed to write books. And as for reading them…

    It’s perhaps worth bearing in mind that by the turn of the last century even the most frothing of the Great Awakening had come to admit that actually they had no problem with evolution. Apart from a few isolated individuals, opposition was not reinvented in mainline sects until the 1960s and 1970s, presumably because they didn’t like it not being the 1950s any more. But ask a creationist about it and he’ll tell you that proper churches have always denied this principle…

    • I also definitely get the vibe that for all the moaning about how the forties and fifties were like the most God-full era in the history of humanity, the fact was that science was accorded a lot more respect from Christians back then than it is today.

      • There is an anti-evolution Christian movie from around 1960, made by the same fine folks who brought us Teenage Christmas and Teenage Testament. I may review it as a companion piece to The Secret on Ararat.

        • Rabukurafuto

          That sounds like it will be fun.

          I have seen letters to Albert Einstein that attacked him for supporting evolution, one even telling him to leave the United States because some people thought he was no longer welcome.

          • Post a link to those letters the next time one of those dumb ‘PS: That student was Einstein’ jokes about a stupid secular professor and the witty christian student that puts him in his place.

          • … comes along. Sorry, posted that previous one a bit too quickly.

    • Headless Unicorn Guy

      But ask a creationist about it and he’ll tell you that proper churches have always denied this principle…

      Proper Church (TM) as in “Church which agrees 1000% with ME!”? That definition has become way too common.

  6. Grammar Police

    Ah, Shari’s anti-evolution speech, we meet again! And once again, Ruby, I bow to your persistence. (You kept on reading; I gave up in disgust.) And THANK YOU for debunking every bullshit lie that spewed from Shari’s (and thus LaHaye et al’s) mouth.

    Terribly sorry, but I don’t think even Book 1 Super-Isis can find a way that Noah’s Ark disproves evolution. (Interesting how Murph is so keen to embrace carbon-dating when it supports what he wants to prove in Book 2, when in Book 1 he was basically dismissing it.)

    I’d love to read a review of that 1960 movie!

  7. inquisitiveraven

    That’s a Gish Gallup? It seems like a pretty feeble attempt at a Gish Gallop. Not enough talking points and too quickly refuted. Okay, the transitional fossil thing runs into the problem that from a creationist point of view, every new fossil creates two more gaps, but the rest is pretty pathetic.

  8. Headless Unicorn Guy

    I mean, we know why Shari is sticking with this relationship—Paul hasn’t said the Magic Words and become a full RTC yet.

    That’s called “Soul-Winning”, and Paul is the “Soul” she’s going to Win, the Notch on her Bible.

    Over at Internet Monk, the original IMonk had a better name for this: “Wretched Urgency”. Shari is probably driven by the idea that only “Soul-Winning” counts before God, and if you miss an opportunity to “Witness”, “God WILL Hold You Accountable (TM)”. I’ve seen this dynamic in action, and it isn’t pretty; the RTC Witness is often driven to the point of crackup themselves.

    This is the crux of the matter, the theme of the book: Noah’s Ark disproves EVIL-ution. Stay tuned.

    And another Fatwa in the never-ending Creation Wars. Young Earth Creation Uber Alles, Culture War Without End, Amen. Screaming “SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!” while all the rest of us are singing “Veterans of the Psychic Wars.

    I’ve said this a lot over at Internet Monk: Jesus Christ got thrown under the Young Earth Creationism Bus long ago.

  9. Headless Unicorn Guy

    And this is a sequel or the next component in a trilogy or series?

    As in “a quarter million words on ‘We Hate Evolution’?” A thousand pages of “EVILUTION SUKZ EVILUTION SUKZ EVILUTION SUKZ”?

    I’m 56. I’m running from the Cancer Langoliers. If I’ve got to spend the time reading a quarter million words on something, may as well make it worth my while. (You think I’m joking? I have read My Little Pony fanfics with more Christ in them than anything out of Rayford Steele LaHaye or Buck Jenkins. I can provide a list of links on request.)

  10. And with the discovery of the DNA code, which actually prevents one organism from changing into another organism, the theory of evolution today is in shambles…

    OH GOD NO SHUT UP YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW DNA WORKS, LAHAYE.

    If a species had such unstable DNA, members of that species would undoubtedly experience a high number of birth defects, and if it occurred in the somatic cells we should expect to see a high mortality rate owing to the breakdown of metabolic systems and the like.

    Hint: LaHaye, there’s proof in your lifetime of this. Radiation damage in humans can do this!

  11. Later than presented, but this bit isn’t in the Completed Critique list! Which means I only just saw it now with the Back and Forward buttons, and on my first read-through of Tubal-Cain’s Singing Swords That Make Absolutely No Difference To The Plot , I didn’t manage to see this and be angry at the stupidity and rank tribalism! …I’d still recommend adding it, because I like your responses to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: