Creationist amorality

Posted 15 June 2006 by PZ Myers

Here's a gorgeous educational site, The Virtual Fossil Museum. It has a nicely organized set of fossil galleries, all intended for use by the education community, and all appropriately credited. This is the way it is supposed to be done.

Unfortunately, that's not the way creationists do it. Here's a case of creationists caught red-handed in blatant theft.

Continue reading "Creationist amorality" (on Pharyngula)

18 Comments

Tyrannosaurus · 15 June 2006

Really nothing can surprise you any longer coming from these "fundamentalists" whether christians, muslims, or what ever. They always run counter to anything their religions stand for and on top of everything they go around with this sense of self righteousness, so disgusting. Christians should be personally offended by these vermin.

Tyrannosaurus · 15 June 2006

Oops, and muslims too should be personally offended by these vermins.

DragonScholar · 15 June 2006

Sarcasm aside (and oh, so far aside), this is what happens when someone puts Belief over Thought.

Believing they are right, they can do anything they want, justifying anything they want. Simple as that.

dre · 15 June 2006

did y'all follow the links to the author/thief's biography? har har! CO-CAINE! THEY PUT THAT DEVILISH STUFF IN MY FOOD, YER HONOR!

wamba · 15 June 2006

DUCK!

Ooop,s sorry. It's just Gansus yumenensis.

Henry J · 15 June 2006

Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

(Well, somebody had to say that, right?)

Bruce Thompson GQ · 15 June 2006

I suggest this is purely a self serving business venture. Creationist material is easy to produce and source material is abundant. He has a target market identified which seems to be growing and has an advertising strategy. His recycling of debunked western creationist arguments in other cultures means he has a gold mine of material that should last for years. By the time all the recycled arguments are debunked he will have retired to his yacht in the Mediterranean. One doesn't need to be familiar with the issue, the arguments or have an opinion, only the desire to make money.

Wamba cried: DUCK

I say, burn her she's a witch and more than 6000 years old. That'll fix the evidence. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

LackOfDiscipline · 15 June 2006

With all the documented lying by creationists in the past, and the recent commentary by Judge Jones on the "lying to cover their tracks" in Dover, I have a question to any creationists that may be viewing this:

Is it possible that a few little exaggerations may have slipped into the Bible at any point?

Shalini, BBWAD · 15 June 2006

[Is it possible that a few little exaggerations may have slipped into the Bible at any point?]

Perhaps THAT'S where they get their lying cue from.

[I suggest this is purely a self serving business venture.]

I was always of the opinion that a large number of creationists are in it for the money and the 'power' they hold over the gullible. Turns out that it's not that far off the mark.

Steverino · 16 June 2006

What's obvious is, this guy loves to see himself on the net!...Damn! Just look at all the "thoughtful" moments captured on his "about the author" page.

I'm not sure I have seen someone so in love with his own pictures.!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 June 2006

Well, as I have often noted, fundies do seem to all have a hugely exaggerated sense of their own self-importance.

As well as raging martyr complexes.

Ron Okimoto · 17 June 2006

The really sad thing is that even the creationist rubes that support the ID/creationist scam artists do not expect them to be honest. Just look at how places like ARN responded to the Ohio and Dover ID fiascos. Heck, just imaagine the mental flip flops the rubes that had been scammed by ID had to go through on the Ohio State board when they found out that there was no scientific theory of ID to teach. They just took the dishonest replacement scam from the same guys that had lied to them about ID. They even botched the scam because they tried to put creationist web links in the lesson plan when the new scam was to not mention creationism or ID. Where are the comments from the "academics" of the SEAO (the creationist science excellence for all Ohioans). Before the ID scam artists had to back off ID and give them the replacement scam these academics were claiming that there was a scientific theory of ID to teach. They had that claim on the first page of their web site. What are they hawking now, and why don't they say anything about being scammed by ID?

I recall one ID supporter at ARN claiming that Wells wasn't being dishonest in his book, but that he was just "exaggerating." The fact that it was the exaggeration that got into the Ohio lesson plan didn't seem to phase the guy, or the fact that using fictional Vulcan logic to justify the dishonesty doesn't cut it in the real world. Where is the discussion at ARN or even ISCID about how ID was a scam all of these years? You'd think that ISCID would want to distance themselves from the scam as much as possible, but denying the creationist scam isn't the way to do it.

It seems to be an obvious fact that the ID/creationist supporters expect to be lied to.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 June 2006

But . . . but . . . lying is OK if you do it for the Lord.

Sean Walker · 17 June 2006

Is it just me or when you point this kind of stuff out do lots of people ignore it in favor of the 'innocent' mistake hypothesis?

I love the photos of the author, that's something else!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 June 2006

Nope, the fundies really *do* think it's OK to lie if you do it for the Lord.

After all, that is the entire *basis* of ID/creationism -- "it's all SCIENCE, I tell ya --- no religion at all whatsoever in any way shape or form".

Ron Okimoto · 17 June 2006

Sean wrote:

Is it just me or when you point this kind of stuff out do lots of people ignore it in favor of the 'innocent' mistake hypothesis? I love the photos of the author, that's something else!

No thinking human being could possibly claim that the creationists scams are innocent mistakes. They are obviously just dishonest means of dealing with past dishonest failures. Not only that, but the past dishonest failures are still being run by outfits like the Discovery Institute, ICR, and AIG. The scam artists at the Discovery Institute dropped ID for the old creationist obfuscation scam for a reason, so why are they still pretending? The only difference between the new creationist obfuscation scam and the old one is that in the new one they just don't mention why they are obfuscating. It really is that stupid. The IDiots claimed for years that they were not like the scientific creationist failures that came before them, so why does the ICR or AIG still exist? They tried to ban teaching biological evolution, when that failed they went for equal time and creation science. When that turned out to be bogus there were a few years where they just tried to blow smoke using the creationist obfuscation scams while denying why they were obfuscating (Philip Johnson's basic scam). They hit on the ID scam, but they realized that it was too bogus to teach within half a decade of seriously starting the scam, and switched over to the old creationist obfuscation scam. For the last half decade they have been blowing smoke about ID and Dover was the result. It turned out that the ID scam artists had switched scams years before. You can't do those things and expect people to believe that they are innocent mistakes especially if you have to keep layering another layer of deception over your failures to keep the scams running. Really, if the Discovery Institute had dropped ID as the Wedge back in 1999, why did they keep it a secret, and why should anyone trust them with the replacement scam after Dover? For whatever reason this is acceptable behavior amoung the creationists that support such scams. Do you see anyone on the ID side over at ARN stating that it was wrong not to inform the ID supporters of the change in direction at the Discovery Institute, when it occurred half a decade ago and all they have been doing is swallowing baloney, and arguing about junk that even the ID scam artists gave up on since then?

Sean Walker · 18 June 2006

I agree 100% Ron. I just find it exceptionally sad and ironic that many people have ignored the overwhelming amount of evidence for dishonesty and downright amoral actions that come out of the DI. When you look at uncommon dissent and see what they write about PT doesn't it make you wonder what is going through their minds? Why does DI get a 'free' amorality pass?

wamba · 18 June 2006

How do we know that the Virtual Fossil Museum didn't steal those images from the Creationist site? It would have been easy enough to remove the watermark with a hi-pass filter.