Skip to main content

Eric Hovind wants to "take back" Earth Day

Image
By
What might this man mean in "taking back" Earth Day? Who is he taking it back from? Well, I guess it must be all of those godless environmentalists who have the silly idea that we should protect the planet for its own sake, and that taking a single day, just one day, out of the year to remind everyone that Earth is something worth preserving, worth not trashing and worth at least planting a tree for is a good idea. Well, I guess bearing his father's torch of stupidity didn't end with his championing of Young-Earth Creationism. Eric Hovind wants to "take back" Earth Day for God, by making it into "God Created Earth Day."

http://www.godcreatedearthday.com/sign-up/

And how is one doing this? By "planting seeds of truth" about God having created Earth, by wearing a t-shirt that says "God Created Earth Day" that one purchases from, you guessed it, Eric Hovind! We are assured that 100% of the proceeds will go right back into his "ministry," which is, in case you forgot, spreading lies about science that are so shameful even the feckless Ken Ham felt compelled to denounce a number of them. This sounds more like a tawdry attempt at fundraising than anything else, a shameless hook to use Earth Day as his own little cash cow. I'll be looking in a few weeks to see if anyone is actually wearing these.
Labels:

Comments

  1. DinoLuvrMarch 25, 2011 at 9:37 PM

    If this doesn't clearly show the intrinsic greed of the "xtian" evangelicals, then folks just choose to be blind.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

What Creationists Don't Understand

By
There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...
Post a Comment
Read more