Tuesday, February 02, 2010

A West Bend Creation Worldview Weekend: are we becoming creationist central?

Wow, it's amazing how popular we've become.

Jensen Family Park Events and Profile, West Bend WI

Shout out to Dan for finding this!

(There you go Dan... sorry I missed it the first time!)


Free Lunch said...

So where is most of the anti-science activism coming from in West Bend. I realize that LC-MS and WELS are not exactly up to speed on science, but they tend not to encourage social activism of this sort. Are the newer evangelical churches that big and active now?

DanBack said...

Where is my shout out? ;)

Here it is in a slightly more readable format. The original page seems to not exist anymore, so here is the cached version:

beesbess said...

Answers in Genesis is the group that created the "Creation Museum." A book called "Idiot America" by Charles P. Pierce,gives highlights. For instance, when you walk in there is a Dino. With a saddle. An English riding saddle. Because humans not only lived with the dinosaurs, the rode them. Hmm.

Anonymous said...


John Jost said...

Interesting questions are asked: "Why are our children leaving the church in record numbers?" Could it be EDUCATION?
"What was Pascal’s Delima?" That, I DON'T KNOW.

There will probably be a few dozen people in attendance - the same few dozen.

How convenient, though: a hop, skip and jump from the house of Mark and Diane Fechter, a.k.a. Lighthouse Ministries, who make a career of violating the Constitution by organizing religious events in public places such as Regner Park or, more often, Silverbrook Middle School, whose principal must be either a friend or friendly.

Anonymous said...

It occurred to me that the most glaring (lack of) evidence for Intelligent Design Theory is a relational map of life. Stephen Meyer, for example, often talks of different "body plans" that could not have naturally evolved and thus have no common ancestors. For want of a better term, ID theory implies a "corn field" model wherein rows of organisms stand unconnected to each other. Yet Meyer, Behe, et al. have never used ID to propose an intelligently designed map of life wherein irreducibly complex structures cleave branches off of the "Tree of Life".

If ID is to have any scientific value (humor me for a moment) then it must be capable of predicting said organization with some meaningful specificity. Scientists should demand that ID theorists produce such a model. That is, make them put their balls on the table by either submitting an easily discredited model or admitting (in public) the incoherence of their theory.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Creationist central?

I get the sense the "diversity" of creationism is not welcome by some of the liberal "open minds" in this area.

...Unless "diversity" has been officially declared dead.

Mpeterson said...

Lame Kev,

While diversity would ask that all ideas be given a hearing, it doesn't mean we have to start teaching students that 2+2=5... although that seems to be what you're advocating.

Can I quote you in this Saturday's column as endorsing the teaching of creationism? It might get you some votes. And can I forward your address to the NCSE?


Kevin Scheunemann said...


Sure. I'm not afraid to say it. "Kids learning creationism, to balance the single minded, non-diverse religion of evolution, is a good thing."

If you want quotes, just ask.

You just have to promise not to "bless me" with one of those "coveted" Peterson political endorsements!

DanBack said...

An now for something different. Found this on YouTube:



What is now the Walgreen's parking lot across form Badger used to be some nice sized evergreens.

Anonymous said...

Here is a highlight from an 11/15/2007 column written by conservative blogger and molecular biologist Mac Johnson. It sums up the intellectual poverty of creationism/intelligent design pretty well. The entire column is pretty interesting.

“So in light of the issue’s new prominence and with a desire to improve the mental hygiene of others, I would just like to say that Intelligent Design is a really, really bad idea – scientifically, politically, and theologically. I say this as a dedicated conservative, who has on many occasions defended and espoused religion and religious conservatism. I also say it as a professional molecular biologist, who has worked daily (or at least week-daily) for years with biological problems to which the theory of evolution has contributed significant understanding – and to which Intelligent Design is incapable of contributing any understanding at all.”

— Mac Johnson, "Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas"

Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, Mass., is a regular contributor to HUMAN EVENTS. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com.

John Jost said...

Kevin, not too many are really diversity-minded, you know.

You know that COEXIST bumper sticker?
The symbols are:

the C for Islam;
the O for peace;
the E for male/female;
the X for Judaism;
the I dotted with a Wiccan Pentangle;
the S for yin yang;
the T for Christianity.

Whoever came up with that design did not give a second of thought to coexisting with atheism, did they?

John Jost said...

Free Lunch said:
"So where is most of the anti-science activism coming from in West Bend?"
Most? I'm thinking First Baptist.

I see creationism as the position of the absolute Bible believer, ID as a means for some to espouse evolution to a degree while retaining creation.

My own best guess thus far is that the infinite amount of matter in the universe has always been and will always be there in some form, that there has never been such a thing as creation, that there will never be such a thing as the end of the world, and that matter simply keeps reorganizing itself into different forms or arrangements - including us and our awareness.

Distance Relative said...

"Whoever came up with that design did not give a second of thought to coexisting with atheism, did they?"

John,thanks you for pointing out (through a linguistic conceit that actually finds a way to make use of the dreaded x-how many posters and dumb gift-cards I have seen where they conveniently "cheat" when it comes to "X"?)you elucidate what I have been thinking all along, 2 points really,:
1:I believe there are many views on creation even within religion, Well,at any rate, i don't think Zen Buddhist's think the world was created in 7 days.(more like 7 cups of green tea;>).
2:without wading into a debate with a philosophy professor about Kant's antinomie's, critique of pure reason, etc., i should add your theory sounds remarkably like those of Henri Bersgon ("Creative Evolution",novelty,duration,etc.)I'm sure you would enjoy him,IF you are not already familiar.)
But thank you all for the commentary(for the most part.)

Mpeterson said...

Ah, the antinomies. The most important discovery in the history of philosophy...

-- yeah, I'll stop there. :^)

John Jost said...

Distance Relative, thanks you,Zen Buddhist's, antinomie's, Bersgon?

Dude, you need some schooling.

DanBack said...

If the Bible said the sky is red with green polka dots these people would call me godless for saying it's actually blue.

John Jost said...

We watched "Creation" last night. It's a good enough movie to watch again after a while.

The main theme is definitely Darwin the man, the love in his family, the distress both he and his wife face when their daughter Annie dies, and their eventual recovery.

Of course, there is a secondary thread about his work. Of course, there is Thomas Huxley telling him: "You've killed God, Sir!". Of course, there is the suggestion, accepted by most of mankind, that he had it right.

A person called this movie "claptrap" some time ago on this blog, and I assume that person was talking about Darwin's theory, not his life. If "On the Origin of Species" is claptrap, which word should I invent to describe the Bible?

Anonymous said...

1982 MIlwaukee Journal story about when creationists reared their ugly heads in West Back back then.