10 November 2004

Attention Shoppers: Fig Leaves 50% Off

Many of you were perhaps looking askance at poor Karlo a few days back when I posted my comic on evolution. You were dismissing this as just one more derisive diatribe poking fun at ol' Joe 5-pack and his church-going friends. But give me some credit cuz I've been trying my darndest to keep an open mind about all this creationist biznus. In fact, I was surfin' the bloggysphere this mornin' when I comes across the following juicy morsel from yonder across the river. It seems there was recently a Creationist "Science" Fair that even gave out prizes. Its coveted second prize went to none other than the "scientist" who proved that women were made for homemaking! (Finally, proof to present to the womanfolks when they start gettin' uppity and refuse to do the dishes!) I quothe from yonder website :

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

Do you remember the passage in Genesis when Adam asks Eve whether she really paid for that basket of apples from the local Wisdom Tree Quickie Mart? Well now we have some empirical data to back the biblikal view of thangs! Brilliant research, covering all the humanities, whether it be biology, or exegetics! Of course, by showing our appreciation for the 2nd prize winner and these new creationist insights into the purposes of the female physique, we shouldn't belittle other ground-breaking research, such as the discovery of sweet little Patricia who proved that wet charcoal briquettes don't come to life in three weeks (I guess that pretty well disproves Aristotles theory of autogenesis!)



So all of ya, put down those old Darwinian tracts you keep readin' and head on over to the Creationist Science Fair! For those who can't squeeze time away from your pagan rituals, you might want to get the documentary of a team of scientists who demonstrate that dinosaurs are just a few thousand years old. (Come to think of it, I think I do remember an Old Testament passage talking about how Noah had one hell of a time trying to get that pair of Allosaurs and T-Rexes on the ark.)



Also check out the Xtian application of Game Theory to Pascal's Wager. If God doesn't exist, the Xtian get infinity minus 1 whereas the athiest gets 1 minus infinity. (Please don't ask me to explain this. If I think about this again, I think my head will explode.)

5 comments:

Susannity! (Susanne) said...

Excellent post.
The problem with the game theoretician is that he assumes Christianity is not a zero sum game - that there is no cost to others as a result of belief. I believe this to be a false assumption. Secondly, it really is ludricous and fearful to say "believe, as eternity is a long time and you want to play the odds". I guess that might work for those on the fence, but for those of us that are atheists, it is a loss of life and time. My husband is quite learned on game theory, I'll have to swing this one by him. =)

Karlo said...

I posted this in jest, of course. Pascal's Wager is, I think, a great example of Western arrogance--as if the only two possible cosmological views are Christianity and Western atheism (there is, for example, Buddhist or Taoist atheism). I suppose this idea harkens back to the Western philosophical tradition in which philosophers had the choice of expressing (or pretending to possess) devotion to the Church (=the Catholic church) and therefore all created silly "proofs" of Christianity. It's interesting to remember that all these proofs, even if we accept the specious logic, only "proved" the existence of a deity. Those who accepted the argument would be justified in believing in any deity--to include the Zoroastrian God or the God of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Objective: christian ministries is a parody. Remarkably brilliant, indeed, in confirming our suspicions with it's tiny kernal of truth.

Eric said...

Hilarious Karlo.

Susannity! (Susanne) said...

My husband read the game theoretician site. He said it was so poor in its use of assumptions and lack of alternatives that it's really a bunch of BS and an insult to game theory folks everywhere lol. =P