Tuesday, February 11, 2014

HBO's documentary "Questioning Darwin" reveals the fearful mindset of those who reject Evolution.

Model of Adam in the Garden of Eden sporting a bellybutton. Because fuck science!
Courtesy of Slate:

Intellectual freedom is one of humanity’s greatest gifts—and biggest burdens. Our ability to ask questions, to test ideas, to doubt is what separates us from our fellow animals. But doubt can be as terrifying as it is liberating. And it’s the terror of doubt that fosters the toxic, life-negating cult of creationism. 

That fear is on full display throughout HBO’s new documentary Questioning Darwin, which features a series of intimate interviews with biblical fundamentalists. Creationism, the documentary reveals, isn’t a harmless, compartmentalized fantasy. It’s a suffocating, oppressive worldview through which believers must interpret reality—and its primary target is children. For creationists, intellectual inquiry is a sin, and anyone who dares to doubt the wisdom of their doctrine invites eternal damnation. That’s the perverse brilliance of creationism, the key to its self-perpetuation: First it locks kids in the dungeon of ignorance and dogmatic fundamentalism. Then it throws away the key. 

I actually missed this documentary when it aired last night, only happening upon it afterward, and I have just now finished watching it.

As a result my head is now hurting so bad I can barely stand.

There is quite a lot of interesting information about Charles Darwin, and the trials that he went through in order to write and publish "The Origin of Species." Not to mention the challenges to the teaching of Evolution that have presented themselves in the years since the book was published.

However what struck me, and caused my mental anguish, were the statements from those who rejected the teachings of Darwin, and the idea that man evolved over time, outright.

"I cannot imagine life without knowing that God has a plan." Quoted the Head of Women's Ministry Christ Community Church.

To me that speaks volumes as to the mindset of those who choose to ignore all evidence which supports Evolution and undermines their ability to have faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Over an over again the message from the faithful is "We don't understand Evolution so it cannot be true." Or, "We cannot accept that our faith is baseless so we will not entertain contradictory information." Or, "I cannot accept that we were not specifically designed by God. and are no more important, or special, than the other creatures with whom we share this planet."

Essentially the argument is that it is much easier, and comforting, to believe that man was created specifically by God to hold dominion over the planet and the animals that live upon it. And that after they die their soul will live on forever at God's side.

While I can understand the impulse to accept a story that rescues us from death and feeds into our innate egoism, I simply cannot excuse the rejection of information based solely on the fear that it may one day prove the fallacy of that faith.

What the documentary illustrates more than anything is an image of mankind as a shivering frightened child, cowering under bed covers and crying out for its powerful father to provide assurance that all is well and that there is nothing to fear. Not even death.

Simply put that saddens me beyond measure, for we have the capacity to prolong our lives well past the life expectancy of our ancestors, to rid ourselves of diseases that crippled and plagued our species for thousands of years, and to increase our knowledge well beyond what could have been imagined even by the greatest minds of the past, and yet we still fear the darkness as if we have not chased it into the shadows with the light of our creativity and intelligence.

At this stage we should be the ones to chase away the monsters and stand bravely facing the darkness, and yet our confidence is undermined by our reliance on the safety of myths and superstitions.

We can, and must, do better.

32 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:02 PM

    Apparently, Adam enjoyed receiving blowjobs from penguins...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:12 PM

      LOL! I was just wondering if I should say that same thing!

      I know I should have something more intelligent to add to the post, but I am just getting so burned out on the idiocy of these people.

      Delete
    2. Ailsa5:54 PM

      5.02 - That has to be the comment of the year!

      Delete
    3. Anita Winecooler7:19 PM

      Standing Ovation for 5:02!!! Whatever happened to the fig leaves? Was Adam dumb enough to mistake poison ivy for fig leaves?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:32 PM

      Ouch. I hate when that happens. Ignore botany and other branches of science at your own risk. It appears that penguins loved warm weather 6,000 years ago. It also looks like penguins were man's first best friend.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:38 AM

      who dosnt?

      Delete
  2. Chenagrrl5:37 PM

    all great minds think alike. I was going to point out the same thing. Why does that penguin seem excited.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:00 PM

    No One Cares About Your Damn Religion

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/religion-and-politics_b_4764865.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:04 PM

    "It’s a suffocating, oppressive worldview through which believers must interpret reality—and its primary target is children."

    Reminds me of the totally wasted Saturday mornings I spent in catechism classes as a child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous7:06 PM

    Just like Jesus Camp, or The Undefeated, or Mitt, Ijust can't

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anita Winecooler7:17 PM

    That photo is insane. Adam has a well trimmed beard, and apparently was heavily into shaving all his body hair without a knick nor bandaid. Who was he primping for?

    Anyway, glad I missed it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous8:10 PM

    I'm going to leave this here for anyone who is interested. Great read about this very thing.
    http://m.rollingstone.com/culture/newsp/love-and-death-in-the-house-of-prayer-20140121

    TEXASMEL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:26 PM

      Wow! This fits nicely with the topic of illogical faith.

      The weirdness of Sarah and her fans makes a little more sense after reading this. It covers some pretty astonishing revelations about IHOP.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:30 PM

      Oops. Meant to leave this quote from page 3 of the RS article.

      "If the Second Coming depends upon "romantic communion" with Christ, and the alternative is satanic hegemony, then any error in worship should be made on the side of erotic intimacy – to lust and repent is surely better than abandoning Jesus in his hour of need."

      Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/love-and-death-in-the-house-of-prayer-20140121#ixzz2t5e6a5jB


      Delete
  8. Anonymous8:26 PM

    There is no problem about evolution. If you need to believe that it was directed by the hand of God, OK, that explains how there can be fossils of plants and animals that can be scientifically dated as million of years old. If they reject science, they they obviously reject doctors, medicine, and the science that went into sending men to the moon and a machine to explore the planet Mars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:28 AM

      Problem is most are inconsistent hypocrites when it comes to that.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous9:51 PM

    I am a person of Faith, Gryph, and a Christian Sunday School teacher. (Um, a Liberal one who teaches Bibilical history and pushes my students to skepticism, doubt, science and history as an important part of faith). Pretty much I support all of your comments regarding Atheism and Organized Religion. I just would like you to keep in mind that Questioning and Doubt is the central heart of real Faith (not often supported by organized religion). But if presented properly, it elevates us all, Believers and NonBelievers. We all are not goons know-nothings. MicMac

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:28 AM

      +1,000

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:38 AM

      + another 1,000
      Beaglemom

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:28 AM

      Unless you are UCC, that rings hollow.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous11:23 PM

    I was raised Catholic and my Catechism teacher once said something like this... "In God's eyes a million years is a day and a day could be a million years." I don't know if she was quoting anyone or not. It seems to me if I run into one of these nuts I just might use that statement as an argument to justify fossils and such in a religious context...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland5:01 AM

      @11:23

      Been using that thought for years. Finally gave it up because ANY agreement - in their minds, anyway - might lead to a softening of their beliefs!

      They simply can NOT allow the possibility that science MIGHT be right! Besides, it destroys their tenet that the earth is only 6000 years

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:39 AM

      Saw a scientist destroy Schroeders work on that. Andthenthis: Confronted with critique, Schroeder lost voice

      After almost seven years of silence, Gerald Schroeder has finally admitted the existence of the critique of his work by Mark Perakh. He did so in a very brief reply to a letter sent to him by Talk Reason reader Daniel. In this essay Perakh shows the inadequacy of Schroeder's "reply" to the critique.
      author(s):
      Perakh, Mark; published: Nov 21, 2005

      Cooling of the universe

      Mark Perakh's book Unintelligent Design contains a chapter critically discussing popular publications by Hugh Ross. In particular, Perakh points to Ross's erroneous pseudo-thermodynamic explanation of the universe's cooling in the course of its expansion. Similar critique of Ross's discourse is found in Perakh's paper published in the Skeptic magazine (Australia) as well as in a post on this site. This article, written in response to a letter sent to Perakh by a graduate student in astronomy, contains a simple discussion of the universe's cooling in the course of its expansion as it is construed in cosmology. It may serve as an additional clarification of Perakh's arguments rendered in the three above listed sources, regarding both Ross's errors and the modern view of the universe's history, for those readers who still need such a clarification.
      author(s):
      Perakh, Mark; published: May 13, 2004

      Delete
  11. I could name a dozen current gay porn models in two minutes that could have modeled that "Adam."

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are wrong prove it

    ReplyDelete
  13. BlueDragon3:23 AM

    http://www.thestate.com/2014/02/10/3257743/darwin-skepticism-halts-adoption.html

    This article reminds us how important it is to be politically active at the local level. People and their "personal beliefs" can obstruct forward movement and progress. I swear some of "these people" really want to take us backward. Before you know it, we'll have another Scopes trial.
    Good movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind_(1960_film).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leland5:02 AM

      No, BlueDragon. GREAT movie!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:40 AM

      they're more subtle this time: fuckin' vouchers.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous6:24 AM

    The philosopher Charles Sanders Pearce explained this method (both tenacity and authority) in Fixation of Belief. Pearce called the uncomfortable state creationists want to avoid "doubt." Today, psychologists (Festinger)call it cognitive dissonance. Creationism in the classroom is the creationists wish to avoid cognitive dissonance - sorry, that's part of the human condition (thankfully) and what has spurred humans on in all sorts of intellectual pursuits.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:45 AM

    I agree with you Gryphen. The primal drive in religion is fear and massive ego, as in a god man created in his own image.

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.