Borne Out of Insecurity

Many theists are so afraid (if only subconsciously) of being wrong about their beliefs that they purposefully try not to critically analyze them for fear of where self-interrogation may lead. (Remember that the next time someone tells you that were not supposed to question god’s reasons for doing something or for allowing something to happen.) It was out of this fear of looking foolish or intellectually challenged that Christian apologetics was borne.

Apologetics is that field of religious study that seeks to answer the challenges of cults, evolution, philosophy, false doctrines, and whatever else threatens what is perceived to be biblical truth. Note that apologetics is not specific to any particular religion, but I will focus on the Christian aspect for this discussion.

Apologists are clever, persuasive, and (generally) well-educated “rationalizers” who pretend to embrace science and skepticism, but force the results of their research to arrive at the only conclusion that allows them to maintain their faith and their intellect.

Confirmation Bias

For most people who want so desperately for something to be true it invariably becomes their reality, and therefore their truth, solely by virtue of their desperation. Desperate people are generally immune from feeling silly, but those who aren’t need to find [read: manufacture] some proof to back them up and squelch that intellect-killing silliness. And no one on this planet is better at manufacturing proof than your average, garden variety Christian apologist.

Knowledge is observed fact verified by repeatable experiment. Belief is the conclusions you draw about the order of things based on your observations and those of others. The problem most people have is that they limit their input of observations to those that match their prejudices. Simply stated, people see only what they want to see. This is called the confirmation bias. Everyone does this – including atheists. We all look for confirming evidence and ignore disconfirming evidence to support our beliefs. It’s a natural phenomenon.

In all fairness, most apologists are externally honest but internally self-deceiving whereby the results of their research and self-interrogation are driven by confirmation bias as well as their subconscious fear of standing alone in their faith or some other psychological need. But they truly believe each argument for belief that they speak.

But some apologists, like convicted felon Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind, are morally reprehensible lying jackasses who rationalize their patent and intentional falsehoods to win souls over for Christ. (Yes, that handsome fellow on the left is Kent. Just a serving suggestion, pardon the pun.) Kent and his ilk pepper their bad science lies with cheap theatrics and fear-based dogma to nudge (if not shove) weak and marginally intelligent people into delusion.

But driven by either motive, the common thread between all Christian Apologists is that they are panicky, cowardly, and religiously insecure people who need to prove what they want so desperately to be true, spewing their delusion in a dire attempt to build intellectual safety in numbers. This is what staves off their feelings of silliness about believing what they believe.

Trying to prove that what you believe is true not only cheapens faith, but it negates it. Apologists apologize because they’re insecure cowards. They do as they do because sometimes belief isn’t enough.

I could mock and defame any number of famous apologists, like a tired old kook (Duane Gish), an arrogant douchebag (Ken Ham), or a thoroughly likable mensch (Hugh Ross). But Hovind is such a flaming homophobic asshole that it makes no sense to rail against anyone else. So let’s have some fun at his expense.

How Apologists Lie

At the outset of every single debate and lecture appearance, Kent would boast (during his unchanging intro) that he “taught high school science for 15 years.”

This is a big fat lie packaged in a truthful statement.

Yes, technically Kent (a) taught (b) “high school science” (c) for 15 years. But what the fuck does this really mean?

When someone says that they “taught high school science” they are intending to represent that they were a science teacher in a high school, public or private.

For the past 6 or so years I have scoured the internet searching for just one piece of evidence to back up Kent’s claim that he taught science in a high school, public or private. As of today I still have nothing to back up that claim.

And then it dawned on me. I’m never going to find any such thing because Kent never really claimed to teach science in any high school. All he did was give us the impression that he did. Also note that he never mentioned who he taught: children in high school, children of any age, or adults – and there’s a reason for this.

Again, Kent claims that he taught high school science for 15 years. Let’s break it down.

My father taught me many things, yet he isn’t a teacher, so we can throw out the taught part.

Teaching has intrinsically nothing to do with school. I’m taught things daily, and I haven’t been in a classroom in eons. Okay, so we can throw out the high school part.

I’ll take Kent on his word for the 15 years part, although I remain unimpressed. I’ve been jerking off for over 30 and I do it no better now than I did when I was 12. Anyway…

This leaves us with science – a very vague, nebulous, and unqualified word. What branch of science, Kent? Biology? Physiology? Chemistry? Geology? Astronomy? Alchemy? Or Christian Science, perhaps?

As it pertains to science topics and the level or degree of coverage and understanding, the “science” that’s taught in junior high is not the same as that which is taught in high school, college, grad school, or any doctoral program. Fairly, “high school” science, whatever the content may be, is the science taught to children of high school age – but not necessarily in a high school, public or private. And remember, Kent never said that he taught children of high school age. A fair stipulation is that “high school science” is the science taught in high school, or high school level science.

Pay close attention: Kent “taught” [pontificated on his version of] high school level science in any venue, under any circumstance, to anyone who would listen – except students in a classroom in a high school. Bet all your money on it.

Lying by the Numbers

While the number changed yearly, Kent also claimed to “debate” and “lecture” [on his subject] some number of days per year that exceeds 365 – always well over 400. It would appear that Kent has his very own definition of the phrase “speaking engagement” [my words]. Kent intended to represent that he has more speaking engagements per year than there are days. Perhaps witnessing while waiting in the supermarket checkout line constitutes a lecture.

Yeah, sure. It’s possible to do, for example, a radio call-in show in the morning and a lecture or debate in the afternoon or evening. But go find yourself anyone in any profession who does the talk circuit and you’ll be hard pressed to find even one whose number comes close to “every day of the year” – let alone surpass it by as much as Kent claims.

At any rate, it is abundantly clear that Kent is a skillful and careful liar. The man lies with technical truths – but he’s still a liar.

When Cowards Censor

Hovind used to incessantly boast that NONE of his published materials are copyrighted – so that they may be copied and distributed without restriction, limitation, or cost. But after video clips of Kent getting his ass seriously kicked by an evolution graduate student during an internet radio call-in debate surfaced in September of 2007, Hovind’s Creation Science Evangelism Ministries (now Creation Today or CT) claimed copyright violation and had the video clips removed.

Searching for the video BEFORE Kent’s cowards cried like a big bunch of babies…

And searching AFTER the pathetic little hypocritical little cowards got their way…

Fortunately, all three videos have returned! Listen to them here then and read the story.

If you check CT’s website today, you will find that their policy has conveniently changed. It now appears that all of their materials are copyrighted. Shocking, no?

Canned Kent

Hovind is now in Federal prison serving a 10 (of a potential 288) year sentence for 58 counts of tax fraud and related crimes, and that’s the way the good lord wants it. It’s all part of his divine master plan and it’s not to be questioned. Remember, GOD IS IN CONTROL!

Kent failed to pay $845,000 in employee taxes at his Christian-themed dinosaur park claiming that it’s a church and not subject to taxes. Now he prays for his sins at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution in South Carolina. Jo (his wife) was convicted on 45 counts of evading bank-reporting requirements. Her slap on the wrist was limited to a prison sentence of one year and one day, plus $8,000 in fines. Kent misses Jo terribly, but my guess is that he found himself a new wife (named Joe, ironically) shortly after his first prison yard ass-kicking.

Send your letters, postcards, and anal lube to:

Evangelical Christian Inmate #06452-017
FPC Edgefield D-2
P.O. BOX 725
Edgefield, SC 29824

Hovind was convicted on November 5, 2006. His release date can be tracked here.

Enjoy your time, Kent.

Begging the Question

Christians love to ask “How is possible that…” while pointing to certain complexities of nature that cannot be easily or concretely explained and attribute their ultimate cause, by default, to their god. Oh, I see. I can’t explain it, therefore their god must exist, he must be the one true god, and therefore must be the ultimate cause of that thing I couldn’t explain. How brilliant! And even if I were able to explain it, I would never be able to do so to their ultimate satisfaction. Gee, I wonder why?

Please, let’s at least try to be innovative. The loaded questions that Christian apologists ask have been answered time and time again despite the same tired old logic they offer up for their counter-arguments. And I won’t waste my time addressing any of them. Why? Because I can’t. You see, I’m not a scientist. Asking me, personally, to answer complex scientific questions is like asking a tax accountant to diagram the chemical composition of propylene glycol, or asking a geologist to explain the tax penalty provisions for Internal Revenue Codes §§ 6694 and 6695. I’ll leave those tasks to chemists and tax accountants respectively.

While I have relatively few talents, my area of expertise ends beyond dissecting the deluded brain and revealing the cowardice, weakness, and fear-filled motives for believing pure bunk. My science and technology experts will handle all the scientific stuff to which I’ve always maintained to know less about than women.

The Christian Apologist Argument Template

If you ever trade all sense of reality for the delusion of Christianity and decide to take a career as a Christian apologist, just follow the 7 simple points below in sequence. This will ensure the most ineffectual, foolhardy, and lackluster argument for belief in god.

• Mr. Apologists points to a picture of {something seemingly impossible to create}, such as the Grand Canyon.
• Mr. Apologist demonstrates, in a wholly accurate scientific manner, all of the physical, logistical, monetary, and time elements required to create {something seemingly impossible to create} thus reasonably precluding human causation.
• Being the consummate “skeptic” [long pause for comic effect], Mr. Apologist asks me specific scientifically-based questions to explain how man could have possibly created {something seemingly impossible to create}.
• Due to my inability to answer any of his questions to that end, Mr. Apologist will have proven the absolute impossibility that man created {something seemingly impossible to create}. And he’d be right.
• Mr. Apologist points to a piece of paper that states that his god created the universe and everything in it – one of which, quite obviously, is {something seemingly impossible to create}.
• Mr. Apologist declares, therefore, that his god exists, he is the one true god, and that he must have created {something seemingly impossible to create}.
• Mr. Apologist tells me that I’ll go to hell for ETERNITY to pray for my sins unless I accept Christ, the guy whose father created {something seemingly impossible to create}.

First, neither the bible nor faith is proof in any way, shape, or form that god exists or that he created anything. The bible is nothing more than words on a page, written by mortal men like you and me, and it proves just about as much as these words:

The Godless Bastard is 6’2, stunningly handsome, eternally youthful, has wavy blonde hair, and his IQ is 130. All women desire him, and all men envy him.

How I wish the statement above was true (you have no idea), but like a wise man once said, religion is to rationality as bullshit is to horsepower.

Tilting at Windmills

Some people believe that the great pyramids of Egypt (and elsewhere on the planet) were built by extraterrestrials who visited Earth thousands of years ago. Personally, I think it’s all a bunch of nonsense. So why don’t I attempt to debunk that theory? Well, aside from the fact that I have no expertise in any of the disciplines that one would need to take on such a task, I have no desire to debunk the theory to begin with.

But even more to the point, I couldn’t care less. Who built the pyramids and how they were built are of no great concern to me.

I’m fairly certain that all pyramids are the long-term handiwork of ancient humans who used simple yet clever systems of pulleys and counterweights to move those enormous stones. But neither I nor anyone else can know for sure as there’s no concrete proof to back up that theory. And no one I know and trust was there to witness their creation.

Not that it wouldn’t be nice to have that proof and know with absolute certainty how they came into existence, if only as a mere curiosity – but I have no vested interest one way or another.

Most importantly, I’m neither validated or encouraged by the potential truth, nor threatened by the potential failure, of the theory that I support. If I’m correct in my belief, big fucking deal. My intellect isn’t bolstered and my life hasn’t changed for the better. And if I’m wrong, again, big fucking deal. My intellect isn’t compromised and my life hasn’t changed for the worse. Not even a little bit. It’s all a zero-sum game to me. And so is the game of life.

So why is it that Christian apologists are so hellbent on debunking evolution? Is it because they truly just don’t buy into the science, or it it because of what the truth of evolution would to their entire belief system? I think we all know the reason.

In The Event of a Tie My God Wins

Disclaimer: In the spirit of fairness, you’ll find that I use the phrase “scientific theory” instead of “scientific fact” in the following section. The Godless Bastard is not a scientist. He accepts evolution as fact but takes it completely on faith.

One cannot prove the existence of any god by disproving (or discrediting) scientific theories that explain any part of the world around us. Christian apologists seem to be blind to this rather obvious truth.

And even if one could absolutely, irrefutably disprove a scientific theory, it does not provide a foundation, by default, for any divine explanation. That is to say, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Just for clarification, when I use the phrase “by default” in this context, I mean “to claim proof of the existence of any god by disproving or discrediting other explanations.” It’s as silly an argument (and holds about as much water) as saying, “It is proven concretely that Mr. X must have killed Mr. Y because there’s no concrete proof that anyone else committed the crime.”

In other words, even if Christian apologists could absolutely and irrefutably disprove evolution, it would give absolutely no weight to the theory that we were created by a supreme being. Even if every other possible purely scientific, non-divine explanation could be disproved, it still would not give credence to a god-caused “catch-all” explanation by default. In this case, all it would mean is that we just haven’t found the correct explanation yet.

And there’s another metaphysical problem that apologists face in their attempt to disprove evolution. If we were to accept the lack of scientific evidence (as they claim) as proof of a god’s existence, then we must certainly regard each and every subsequent relevant scientific discovery as an argument against the existence of god, such as each new Precambrian fossil that we find.

But let’s face it. For theists and atheists alike with an expert knowledge of science, debating evolution versus creationism is like a game of Tic-Tac- Toe; anyone with half a brain can’t lose the game…or win it either. In all fairness, each argument (on either side) has a technically plausible foundation if you’re willing to accept the necessary premise. Of course this applies to many things in life. For example, E.T. is a wonderful movie and is not viewed as silly or ridiculous if you can suspend disbelief for two hours and accept its premise.

Technically, anything is possible.

Yeah, technically there could be a god who created the universe in a mere six days. And, technically, pigs might be able to fly. Maybe they only do it when we’re not watching, or maybe they just haven’t figured out how to do it yet. Anyway, the questions apologists ask (and the answers they provide) to disprove anything that threatens the existence of their god are of little interest to me. What I’m far more amused by and interested in is their motivation. And clearly it’s insecurity and lack of true faith.

An Explanation for Everything

First, I don’t believe in “near death experiences” (NDEs). When you’re dead, you’re dead. The only thing that happens to what’s left of you is decomposition. Medical science has explained away all of those “bright light” encounters. But Christians do believe in life after death, so they have to deal with the phenomena for non-Christians who claim to have experienced it.

So, is it possible that pleasant NDE’s experienced by non-Christians discredit Christian doctrine by disproving eternal hellfire for the unsaved? Click here to read the lamest quick and dirty panicky attempt to shut down this very valid question.

In response to a study that revealed a whopping 80% of those who were brought back from death experienced nothing, this disingenuous moron writes, “Who would boast about being sent to a place of shame and torment?”

This has got to be the most logically incoherent statement ever uttered. I think that anyone who truly believed that they journeyed to hell and back would SCREAM from the mountain top that they now KNOW that hell is real and then turn to Christ real god damn fast.

I’ve met several non-Christians (atheist, agnostic, and Jewish) over the years who claimed to have had NDE’s, and all of them remained steadfast in their beliefs. None of them turned to Christ. Not a one. And this intellectually dishonest wacko wants us to believe that someone wouldn’t sidestep eternal damnation by subsequently accepting Christ because of earthly pride? Um, I don’t think so.

Of course, the most pathetic catch-all explanation this guy provides is that for those who were resuscitated and remembered nothing is that “…it was so horrific that his mind had suppressed it.”

Yeah, I think someone’s supressing something alright.

A Final Word From Kent

“I think that the only reason anybody would say [that the universe] happened by chance and there was no designer is because they don’t want to find that designer. The atheist can’t find god for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” – Kent Hovind

Nice try, but I’m afraid you’ve got that all wrong, Kent.

“A Christian can’t find truth in atheism for the same reason an idiot just can’t seem to find his SAT scorecard.” – Godless Bastard

You see, when someone’s become so heavily invested in a life-long delusion they just can’t afford to be wrong.
 

Feedback