Hedgehogs on the Beach

This post is a slightly elaborated version of a post I put up at my blog last night.  I originally didn’t think it was good enough to post here, but a comment by Smut Clyde improves my post immeasurably:

From the annals at Right Wing Watch, here’s a story of creationist grifters Kevin Swan and “Creation Museum” creator Ken Ham claiming that they are “effectively very, very close to Omaha Beach in the war of the worldviews?”

I think Swanson and Ham are being surprisingly accurate in their characterization of their role in the culture wars.  Swanson and Ham are the human equivalents of the “Czech hedgehogs” that littered the beaches of France- they are vicious, dense, and serve only as an impediment to progress. 

As an added bonus, here’s Ham’s talk of the specter of the loss of the “war of the worldviews”:

It is, it’s an extremely important battle. Because, you know what, it only takes one generation to lose a culture. That’s all it takes. And if you can capture one generation, you’ll have the culture. And just as, you know, when the Israelites crossed the Jordan river and there were 12 stones to remind the next generation of what God did and what did we find? They weren’t reminded, the next generation, they lost it in one generation, we’re losing this culture before our very eyes today because the church opened the door to allow the philosophy of naturalism, and evolution, millions of years, to permeate into God’s word. We need to shut that door. If we don’t shut that door, that’s where the battle’s at right now, if we don’t shut that door, we’re going to lose this culture, America will be the England and Europe of tomorrow.

GASP, we’ll be the England and Europe of tomorrow?  Will that mean that we’ll have super high-tech jet fighters trains from the future?  Well, clear those goddamn hedgehogs off the beach already!

Postscript: The danger of posting a link to a Nena video (even Nena singing in English, which is second-rate Nena) is that I will now spend the rest of the night watching Nena videos. 

Addendum:  Smut Clyde pointed out an unintentional bit of autogodwinning on the part of Ham and Swan:

I would have chosen the Battle of Britain, myself, if I were looking for an example of an underdog in a climactic clash of civilisations to obtain the sympathy of my audience. But if Ham and Swanson prefer to identify with the Nazis, I’m not gonna stop them.

Smut nails it- Swan and Ham are talking about defending “their” culture from the onslaught of modernity, in essence comparing themselves to the German soldiers who were trying to stave off the Normandy invasion.  And to think, all this time, I thought creationists had problems with Poe’s law, not Godwin’s.

Posted by Big Bad Bald Bastard on 01/27/13 at 10:29 PM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsTo Poe Or Not To Poe?

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Immer der Kulturkampf, these guys.

Our American Conservatives - Desperately Trying to Hold on to THE PAST.  Sorry, guys.  Doesn’t work that way.  Tantrums, kicking & screaming notwithstanding.  Teh FUTURE will come marching on.

we’re losing this culture before our very eyes today because the church opened the door to allow the philosophy of naturalism, and evolution, millions of years, to permeate into God’s word.

In other words, science, this is what they’re really railing about. The only problem with this anti-intellectualism that they’re preaching is that once you teach people to be critical, the hallmark of any good scientist, you have rung the death-knell of your religion.

We need to shut that door.

Anti-intellectualism. Next thing you know, they’ll be rounding up all the individuals who wear glasses because they look too smart.

In many evangelical circles the word “knowledge” is spat out as if it were the devil’s sperm.

It may come down to their misunderstanding of the word “belief.”  They seem to think that all “belief” is ontologically the same—that materialists “believe in” evolution the same way Christians “believe in” creationism.

In fact, it comes down to prepositions.  There’s a difference between “believing in” and “believing that.”  I believe that Australia is real, even though I’ve never been there.  Similarly, I don’t believe in evolution; I believe that it is true.

You only believe IN things for which there is no proof.  But they don’t get it, and they don’t care.  They start with “belief in” and then find the proof after the fact, or so they, uh, believe.

GASP, we’ll be the England and Europe of tomorrow?

Bring it*. 

* sans austerity, thank you very much.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main