Essay:Creationist Style

Another RationalWiki user attacks the same essay, by Andrew Schlafly, here. Check it out too!

Point by Point to the Companion Article, Liberal Style by Andy

Aschlafly's Original Essay Andy Schlafly is convinced that this is how liberals "style" their writing. He doesn't notice that it's a fairly redundant article, even for him. See our companion article, Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia, to realize just how much of a dead horse Andy's beating. Andy thinks that liberals exhibit traits, like,

AmesG's Response Our rebuttal Andy's lovely list would not be complete without noting one thing: in addition to our reply to Andy's points, and analysis of creationist behavior, we would be remiss to exclude one gem of creationist behavior, which is: The creation of bizarre lists.

The style of a liberal often includes these characteristics: calling conservative free speech "hate" speech pretending to know more than he does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal rarely admits that and often pretends to know more than he does resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness preference for obscenity and profanity insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate over-reliance on mockery over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy hostility to faith insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans believing that the education of children is for liberals to control believing that conservatives will fail, and shock when they succeed reluctance to admit that anything is morally wrong bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be false often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while never saying that about a fellow liberal (such as Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton) willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such as liberal Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, or those liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists). using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.

The style of a creationist often includes these characteristics: An affinity for hateful speech, including invasive, insulting, degrading abortion clinic protests, ethnic slurs, stereotyping, and gay-bashing. A disrespect for experts & elite knowledge, masquerading as false modesty, coupled with a complete surrender of all interesting questions of science or philosophy to God, in a way that forecloses debate, and cultivates a willful blindness to the surrounding world. Quantifying absurd, unquantifiable numbers just to get into newspapers, eager to mock such absurd quantifications. A preference for threats, outright hostility, and cyberstalking as more family-friendly and Christian alternatives to base, lib'rul obscenity. Also, an oversensitivity to boobies. An inability to successfully have the last word in a debate, as a result of the conservative tendency to espouse untenable ideas to their deathbeds, and a boorish ability to bungle even a winning argument, and make it sound moronic. A hilarious inability to comprehend, much less use effectively, humor. See, e.g., Fox News' woefully bad Half Hour News Hour, compare The Daily Show. Blatant hypocrisy (see #4) coupled with incredulity following accusations of hypocrisy. A befuddling conflation of faith with science, politics, and reason, that is in fact a disservice to all four of these meritorious subjects. Creationists would have us believe that their faith - as in blind, unflinching, infuriatingly obstinate belief in a fact or idea - governs wherever subjectively-held, recently-created beliefs come into conflict with empirical science or empirical facts. Unfortunately, this idea makes all persons of faith look ridiculous, rather than holy, and is insulting to truly religious persons the world over. A confusing inconsistent belief in the importance of majority consensus. Where the majority of Americans, allegedly, believe in the Great Flood, this consensus means that the Flood must have happened. But, where 90%+ of worldwide scientists acknowledge Darwinian thought as the requisite foundation of biology, this is indicative not of veracity, but of widespread endemic suppression of creationist viewpoints (see #13). Confounding the terms, "someone who advances objective science," or "scientist," with the term, "liberal." Therefore, the point in comparison, with this substitution, makes it clear that what really irks creationists is that someone without their far-right, Christians-only agenda could control education. The continued seepage of objective scientific facts, like evolution and the speed of light, into education really irks them. A belief that conservatives ever win anything. Remember the Civil War, and the Civil Rights crusade, and American independence? Show us one long-term conservative victory, and we'll eat our hats, with a side of goat. Deliberately pretending that liberals' refusal to concede to subjective, far-right, anti-Christian "Christian" morals implies that liberals have no morals, and believe that "anything goes." Creationists, apparently, believe that if you don't believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days, you must be just one step shy of a murderous rampage. We call that "empirically disproven"... not that empirical proof has any meaning to creationists. Laughable persecution complexes. When told that their viewpoints were scientifically disproven 200 years ago, or bigoted, or foster hatred and intolerance, creationists believe that their entire world is crashing around them and, after reconciling the cognitive dissonance, make $h!& up to cover for it, and then yell at you for persecuting them. This is a natural result of the fact that a creationist's entire worldview is based on an unflinching paleolithic faith, a very volatile foundation for any persistent, all-informing modern worldview (just ask Al Qaeda). An example is Conservapedia's article on animal rights: naturally, animal rights activists are actually in it to restrict humans, not help animals. Pretend that their comments aren't racist, bigoted, or hatemongering (see Roger for example). Attempt to engage in fake science, to the detriment of both science and faith. The ridiculous pseudoscience advanced by creationists obviously endangers science, as factual relativism is wont to do, but it also throws faith into question, since those of us who approach faith normally - as a "why," not a "how" - start to look ridiculous, and feel pushed away from a religion increasingly in the hands of fanatical, know-nothing, ignorant zealots. See the world only in shades of black & white. Bill Clinton had sex with another woman; therefore he's evil. George Bush didn't; therefore he's good. It's not that simple. Nor is the world split along "liberal" and "conservative" lines, as Ann Coulter would have us believe. Of course, this truth is a wee bit too complicated for creationists, so they try to ignore it and move on with their lives.