Having beaten their misshapen, echo-chamber heads against various institutional walls since time immemorial, lobbyists for the teaching of creationism in public schools have been forced to adopt a new slogan, a de facto tagline for Intellgent Design: "Teach the controversy!"

Dogged though these unfortunate meta-tards may be owing to their virtually irreversible childhood programming, and as practiced as they are at deceitful language tricks as a result of their steadfast refusal to deal in facts, they're plumb out of even superficial cleverness on this one. The "controversy" exists only insofar as religious folks refuse to rise above the intellectual level of no-see-ums -- they just find all of that reading and questioning and stuff tiring, I guess. But that aside, their new motto invites a host of interesting questions:
  • If fundamentalists claiming the existence of a "controversy," are they voicing doubt about the King James Bible's legitmacy? Might they be admitting to the absurdity of treating Genesis lore and other Bible content as historical fact rather than as the apocalyptic parable it was meant to be?

  • Would a logical extension of the teach-the-controversy idea not make it proper to teach schoolchildren all folklore-derived notions about the origins of humankind -- Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist, Zoroastrian? What about subsects of Christianity -- notably Roman Catholicism, a faith findies love to hate? Hell, how about these guys?

  • Because the overwhelming body of available evidence argues against the existence of a triune god, and because no objective support exists for many of the central tenets of Christianity (dead men walking, talking animals, hydrambulism, a global flood, a geocentric "firmament" astronomical model, and pretty much everything else related to the natural world), would it not be fair for atheists to infiltrate churches and exhort members of the flock to question exactly what's in the shit sandwiches they're fed every Sunday morning? As it is, fundies often complain of being "marginalized" (their euphemism for not being able to theocratize the United States ad libitum), so I have to wonder how they'd react if atheists really were as "evangelical" as they are scornful, showing up in church parking lots and accosting young children with freethinker tracts. (I've considered this before, but as it turns out a fella named Hank Fox plans to actually do it -- this is funny.)
It is ironic yet fitting that an entire subculture of dweebs who perennially hone in on scientific terminology they wrongly deem as qualifying (e.g., the "theory" of evolution) have been tripped up by their own word choices.

I'm sure other bored bloggers harboring similar a distaste for fundies' determination to shepherd America into a bleak and bygone era have written on this in much more clever and involved fashion, but with my running career having returned to its acme I haven't as been inspired to go plumbing the Web for exemplars of wasted DNA as I normally am. Still, I leave with you a pair of verses symbolizing the true essence of this and other "controversies" proposed by Bible-wielders:

Numbers 23:19 -- God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done.

Exodus 32:14 -- So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by