God Takes Mr. Wizard: No Scientific Explanation Needed

God took Mr. Wizard this week. Scientists will tell you he died "after a long battle with multiple myeloma," whatever that is. But the only explanation you really need is that God decided it was time.

Don Herbert, who used science to try to "explain" the universe to millions of young people on television as "Mr. Wizard," was by all accounts a kind and genial man. But his gentle disposition masked a sinister and devious plan: To turn the young people of America away from God.

"Over the years, Don has been personally responsible for more people going into the sciences than any other single person in this country," George Tressel, a National Science Foundation official, is quoted as saying in an obituary.

It must have been a different world back in 1951 when his first show premiered. Can you imagine good Christian parents today allowing their children to be taught by someone who calls himself a "wizard" and tries to seduce children with the "magic" and "mystery" of science? Parents have enough problems these days trying to pry copies of the anti-Christian Harry Potter books out of their children's little hands. Yet this man was able to go on television every week and tell children there were easy "scientific" explanations for God's creation and that they should rely on their brains instead of the Bible.

"He really taught kids how to use the thinking skills of a scientist," said Steve Jacobs, who worked with Herbert on a 1980s Nickelodeon revival of the show, which brainwashed another generation of innocent children.

The new Creation Museum, which opened May 28 in Lexington, Kentucky, is just one effort to reverse all the damage that Mr. Wizard has done. As you enter the museum, according to one visitor, there is a poster on the wall that explains the difference between how secular humanists and scientists view the world and how the world really is. On one side we see the words of a philosopher with the very effeminate name of Rene Descartes, who is, not surprisingly, French, over a picture of an ugly, unwieldy stack of moldering books: "I think, therefore I am." The caption reads, "Human Reason." In contrast, on the other side over the caption "God's Word," we see a pristine white scroll and the words "God said: "I am that I am."

As parents and their children stroll through the 60,000 sq. ft. museum, designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, they can see the terrible cost wrought by Mr. Wizard and other advocates of human reason: nuclear war, drug addiction, gay marriage, abortion, evolution taught in the schools, school shootings, graffiti, and carnivorous wolves. Before Eve gave Adam a bite of the apple from the Tree of Knowledge, they lived peaceably with all of the animals, including dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus Rexes munched contentedly on grass and leaves, while children played with their pet velociraptors. One bite of the apple sent these loving dinosaurs into a murderous rage.

And so how could parents sit idly by as week after week Mr. Wizard went on television to distribute poison apples from the Tree of Knowledge to innocent baby boomer children? Sadly, no one apparently realized at the time that his actions would unleash the turmoil of the 1960s.

In another diorama in the Creation Museum a white paleontologist consults a Bible to learn all he needs to know about the bones of a dinosaur, while a Godless Asian paleontologist strains to think about the origins of the fossil he is looking at using scientific instruments. Considering how many Asians there are in the world and how well they do in school, it is a warning about what the future may bring if we are not vigilant.

But there is some hope. Despite all of the young minds Mr. Wizard warped with his scientific experiments using mayonnaise jars and other simple items you can find around the house, many of his viewers have already rejected his blasphemous teachings. A recent poll shows that 68% of Republicans do not believe in Evolution and only 57% of Democrats do. So the forces against human reason are making headway, especially in the Republican party.

Conservatives, of course, are leading the charge against the ravages of thinking too much and there is perhaps no greater opponent of reason and thought than the National Review's Jonah Goldberg. He has an ingenious idea for reversing the damage that education is doing to our children: Close all public schools. "Here’s a good question for you: Why have public schools at all?" he writes. "OK, cue the marching music. We need public schools because blah blah blah and yada yada yada. We could say blah is common culture and yada is the government’s interest in promoting the general welfare. Or that children are the future. And a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Because we can’t leave any child behind. The problem with all these bromides is that they leave out the simple fact that one of the surest ways to leave a kid "behind" is to hand him over to the government. Americans want universal education, just as they want universally safe food. But nobody believes that the government should run 90% of the restaurants, farms and supermarkets. Why should it run 90% of the schools — particularly when it gets terrible results?" It certainly wasn't school that helped Goldberg become one of conservatism's leading lights.

The liberal elites will still send their kids to private schools but many more children will be educated in parochial schools, where they will spend as much time learning about the Bible as Muslim kids spend learning about the Quran in madrassas. Still more children will be home-schooled by parents who will teach them only the important things they haven't forgotten yet. And some parents will not have the money or time to educate their children at all, which is at least better than the alternative. This plan would also have the effect of emptying our universities, giving the Marxist professors that dominate them fewer young minds to pervert. And closing public schools will go a long way to erasing the advantages our enemies in the Middle East have from educating so few of their kids.

Of course, it's sad when anyone dies, even someone as misguided as Mr. Wizard. He probably didn't realize that his little television program would lead to so much destruction in the second half of the 20th century. And in a way his death was probably a blessing because the future does not look too bright for people like him who believe in reason and science. In the end science couldn't save Mr. Wizard. Let that be a lesson to all of us.

Share This Post



Jon Swift,Mr. Wizard, Don Herbert, Creation Museum, Evolution, Jonah Goldberg, Religion, Education, Politics, Television, Science

Will Mitt Romney Take Battlefield Earth to the White House?

Presidential candidates often get asked trick questions designed to give us greater insight into their personalities. But when Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney revealed that his favorite novel was Battlefield Earth, written by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, many were puzzled. Few understood why he would pick this science-fiction pulp novel over a more respectable American classic. It seems unlikely that his campaign had not anticipated this question and that he had actually answered spontaneously. Clearly, he was sending supporters a coded message. But what was it? Was his answer a calculated bid for lucrative Scientology funding? Was he trying to appeal to conservative bloggers who are overwhelmingly made up of single white male science-fiction fans who live in their parents basements? Was he signaling a break with President Bush, who prefers slim intellectual volumes like Albert Camus' The Stranger, by citing a 1,000-page low-brow bestseller?

"I have no problem with Governor Romney's religion," said Hugh Hewitt who has written a laudatory book about Romney called A Mormon in the White House? "I do have a serious problem with his "favorite novel" -- L. Ron Hubbard's Battleship Earth. Say it ain't so, Mitt." David Weigel speculated that Romney was sending this coded message by citing a tome written by the founder of Scientology: "So, you think Mormonism is weird?" One blogger even decided that he could not vote for Romney based on his answer and Ann Althouse found the book "childish," though she hasn't read it. Others just pointed out that it is a bad book. Virtually no one defended his choice.

I have not actually read Battlefield Earth, but I did manage to stay awake through part of the movie, which starred John Travolta, and I have skimmed a summary of the plot. From what I was able to learn about the book, however, it's easy to why it might appeal to someone like Romney and the insights I have gained from this choice reassures me that he would make a great President. Romney is the first serious Mormon candidate for President, unless you count his father, George, who bowed out of a presidential run after saying that he had been brainwashed about the Vietnam War. Mormons believe that God lives on a planet near a star called Kolob, which might explain why Romney takes science fiction seriously. In fact, the creator of the original Battlestar Galactica based some of that sci-fi series on Mormon theology, calling the home planet in the series Kobol.

L. Ron Hubbard's novel is about a alien race called the Psychlos who have come to Earth searching for gold and have some trouble with the violent natives, which sounds a lot like the story of our pioneers in the American West. Among those pioneers were Mormons who fled persecution to set up their own government in Utah, which they ruthlessly defended by fighting Indians and other pioneers. One unfortunate wagon train from Arkansas learned just how far the Mormons would go to defend their territory when they made the mistake of trying to cross through Utah on the way to California. Under orders of Brigham Young, Mormons slaughtered 120 settlers at the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, sparing 17 children under the age of 10, who were then raised as Mormons. Like the Psychlos, the Mormons were prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect their new settlement.

I'm sure that Romney must have had great sympathy for these misunderstood aliens who were trying to fit in to their new homeworld while at the same time defending their values by any means necessary. It's not easy being accepted when you're a furry nine-foot-tall, 1,000-pound alien with talons instead of fingernails. Being the governor of a blue state, Romney must have felt a bit like an alien himself. On the one hand, he couldn't get elected by opposing gay rights or abortion and on the other hand he risked being excommunicated if he seemed too liberal. More than most religions, the LDS church does not tolerate dissent and often excommunicates members who intellectually stray from Mormon doctrine. So the only way he could get elected was by appearing to be pro-choice and pro-gay. Now that he is seeking the Republican nomination he not only has to prove that he is anti-abortion and anti-gay but also that he loves guns and is a life-long hunter.

One of the points a recent PBS documentary made about Mormonism, also known the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was that there has always been a tension in Mormon history between the desire to assimilate into American culture and at the same time remain distinct. Mormons have reluctantly conformed to American culture by giving up polygamy and child brides in 1890 so that Utah could become a state and in 1978 reversing their belief that black people were the spawn of Satan and could not get into heaven, which I'm sure many black people really appreciated. If Romney were to be elected President it would go a long way toward legitimizing the LDS Church and making its members feel that they were no longer alienated from American society.

Unfortunately, Battlefield Earth does not end with a Psychlo being elected President. In fact, the Earthlings never make them feel welcome at all. Instead, they become terrorists. Here the parallels between the book and our current situation are uncanny. The Psychlos want to fight the terrorists on Earth so that they don't have to fight them at home. And they are not above using enhanced interrogation techniques to stop them. The terrorists, however, plan to send radioactive dirty bombs to the Psychlos' home world. Can the Psychlos defeat the terrorists on Earth before they follow the Psychlos home? Or will traitorous Psychlos give up and declare the war is lost like Harry Reid, who also happens to be a Mormon, though for some reason he has not been excommunicated yet. I'm afraid I couldn't tell you what happens at the very end of Battlefield Earth because I couldn't make it through the movie or the summary.

Of course, Battlefield Earth is just a "fun book," as Romney called it, so I don't want to make too much of it. But I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get a few pointers from the Psychlos about how to run America if he is elected President. Like a lot of members of the Christian Right, I was a bit nervous about Romney, afraid that he might want to take the oath of office on the Book of Mormon or that he might try to pass a law forcing everyone to wear magic underwear, but now that he has revealed Battlefield Earth is his favorite novel (and that the Bible and not the Book of Mormon is his favorite book) I'm reassured that he is just the kind of man we need to fight the terrorists. Isn't it great that we are finally learning something important about the candidates?

Share This Post



Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Mitt Romney, Battlefield Earth, Mormon, Scientology, Christianity, L. Ron Hubbard, Politics

Is Abstinence-Only Sex Education Too Explicit?

According to surprising new federal report, which was released late on Friday so that no one would know about it, and only after Congress insisted, abstinence-only sex education classes have had "no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence." Apparently, kids who enrolled in these programs were just as likely to have sex as other kids. Unfortunately, this study comes at a bad time for abstinence-only advocates in the Bush Administration. Wade Horn, the unfortunately named point man for the administration on abstinence-only education, just resigned after overseeing a huge increase in funding for the program to over $200 million and already those who want to turn our kids into a generation of hos are bouyant. "After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth. "The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that's not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics."

But Robert Rector of the Abstinence Clearinghouse cautioned that we shouldn't be worried so much about whether the program is effective, calling that a "bogus issue." Instead we should focus on the importance of the "values being taught." He has a point. Just because the War on Drugs has been a failure, for example, that's no reason to stop it, so why should we care if abstinence-only sex education doesn't work as long as we are doing the right thing?

If these programs have in fact been a failure, I don't think it is because kids were being given too much inaccurate information. I think the real problem was that they were given any information at all. We need more ignorance about sex, not less. The word "abstinence" itself is probably too explicit. Once you tell kids to abstain from sex until marriage, you have already told them too much. When kids start experimenting with abstaining, it should be no surprise that things can get out of hand and that they will move on to actually having sex.

Kids who are told to abstain from something are naturally going to start wondering what they are abstaining from. Instead of then telling them what sex is in explicit detail, and then telling them not to do it, it might be better if teachers described sex using vague, confusing metaphors the way adults used to back when teens were not having sex. For example, instead of outlining the mechanics of sex, a teacher could say, "Are you familiar with the workings of the internal combustion engine?" After an hour of talking about pistons and carburetors and spark plugs and power strokes, the class would be over. Typical questions such as "Where do babies come from?" could easily be deflected by talking about storks illustrated by cartoons. Cute stories like this have worked for centuries.

Parents used to be the ones to teach their kids about sex even though they usually didn't know a lot about it themselves, and most waited until the day before their children got married. The idea that people should know anything at all about sex before they were married is a peculiarly modern one. In the past, for example, British mothers used to give their daughters very succinct advice before their wedding nights. "Lie back and think of England," they would say. Obviously, that wouldn't quite work here, but I see no reason why American mothers can't tell their daughters to lie back and think of America. Boys, meanwhile, will have already picked up enough information on the street and from the Internet porn to fill in any gaps.

Some people believe that kids need to learn about sex now to avoid diseases like AIDS. Many abstinence-only programs mistakenly gave lip service to this idea. For example, they would discuss condoms, though only in terms of their failure rates, telling kids that they don't always offer protection from AIDS, which is technically true. But perhaps it would be better not to tell kids about condoms at all. If a student asks what they are, the teacher could tell them that they are balloons and blow one up as a demonstration. A particularly creative teacher could make them into condom animals. If that doesn't work, the teacher could claim that condoms actually cause AIDS.

Of course, there is so much sexuality in our culture now that many kids already know too much about sex despite the valiant efforts of the Justice department and FCC to battle obscenity and of conservative groups to ban contraceptives. I'm afraid that the only way to fight all this information is with strategically released misinformation. Many young people (and some presidents) already believe that some sexual activities, such as oral and anal sex, don't even count as sex, an idea that may unfortunately have been reinforced by the fact that they are often unmentioned in abstinence-only sex education classes. To fight this dangerous tendency to define sexuality down, educators should instead define sexuality up. In some Muslim countries men and women are forbidden from shaking hands. So let's take a page from their book and tell young people that a handshake is sex. Let's tell kids that they could get pregnant from cybersex or get a sexually transmitted disease from a kissing. By redefining sex, we could fool kids into thinking they are having sex when they really aren't. Then perhaps that would be as much of a risk as they would be willing to take.

The less accurate information given in a sex education class, the better, because what kids don't know about sex can't hurt them. Since abstinence-only sex education classes usually don't even discuss homosexuality, many gay kids don't know enough about their feelings to act on them, so they usually channel them into excelling in high school musical performances or band, activities that bring delight to other students. Then when they are older they can enroll in ex-gay therapy or become priests. If more heterosexual students were kept in the dark about their hormonal urges, they would channel their frustrations into sports. Information-free sex education classes would be a boon for high school athletics.

Clearly, more needs to be done to frighten and guilt-trip kids and confuse them about sex. In the Bible when someone has carnal relations with someone the verb "know" is often used. Adam and Eve did not even have sex until they ate of the Tree of Knowledge. The lesson is obvious. If we really want our kids to stop having sex, we need to give them as little knowledge as possible. Abstinence-only sex education has been a good first step in reaching that goal, but we can do better.

Share This Post



Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Abstinence Only Sex Education, Sex, Homosexuality, Gay, Education, Bush, Health Care, Politics

Conservapedia

For years homeschooled children have had to rely for all of their information on Wikipedia, which is full of dangerous ideas that homeschooling was supposed to prevent from seeping into the home. Now, finally, there is an alternative, which doesn't have any controversial ideas at all: Conservapedia. Conservapedia is based on good Christian values, unlike Wikipedia, which I gather from the name, is based on Wiccan. In Wikipedia, according to the founders of Conservapedia, "Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance." But Conservapedia gives Christianity its due for being so supportive of the work of Galileo and Copernicus.

"The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans." reads Conservapedia's entry on Wikipedia (helpfully redirected from Wackypedia in case you mistype). "For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet virtually 100% of Wikipedia administrators accept it and will quickly censor factual material contrary to evolution." The biases in Wikipedia that Conservapedia corrects are all outlined in an article called "Examples of Bias in Wickipedia."

"Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception" is the Number 1 Example of Wikipedia bias. Example 5 points out "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American." On Conservapedia less acceptable English spellings of English words are banned in favor of proper American spellings. "Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia," reads Example 8. "Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, 'She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming.' That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does." In fact, one of the reasons I stopped reading the National Enquirer is because I was tired of all the stories about Nina Totenberg's affairs and her latest stints in rehab. Conservapedia doesn't even have an entry on Nina Totenberg, much to my relief.

Another example of Wikipedia bias that Conservapedia cites is its unfair attack on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which must be particularly upsetting to Conservapedia's founder. Started in November 2006 "as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey" Conservapedia was founded by its most prolific writer Andrew Schlafly, the non-gay son of Phyllis Schlafly, who just happens to be the legal counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Schlafly is an outspoken critic of vaccines (which as someone who hates needles I fully support), has warned that abortion causes breast cancer, filed briefs on behalf of Terry Schiavo and revealed that junk science claiming a link between asbestos and cancer is what led to the World Trade Center's collapse.

I am astonished by all of the things I have learned already from Conservapedia. For example, I was unaware of something called the Law of Mass Conversation: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form." Now that I think about it, I have observed that often when you're in a conversation with a large group of people you sometimes think you have let a matter drop, but you end up rehashing the same topic over again in a different form. This happens a lot on the Internet, too. But I had no idea someone had written a law about it.

But that's just one of the many fascinating, unbiased facts I learned. After spending the day hitting the random search button I felt like a Renaissance man, the good Christian kind. Of course, since anyone can edit the Conservapedia, the entries are constantly changing, so the links go to the last version I saw. Feel free to register and add your own insights, although it would be difficult to improve on some of these entries:

Kangaroo: "Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood." (I'm sure skippy will be very interested to learn this.)

Theory of Relativity: "Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity.…'All things are relative' became popular as atheists and others used relativity to attack Christian values. There remains enormous political support for the theory of relativity that has nothing to do with physics, and Congress continues to spend billions of dollars unsuccessfully searching for particles predicted by the theory of relativity."

Gospels: "The greatest writing in the history of the world is the Gospel of John....This single book has done more to shape human thought and behavior than any other work. Our uniquely American First Amendment right of free speech is based on ministers preaching of the 'Word' of God as described in the first few verses of the Gospel of John."

George Washington: "Washington is perhaps the person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by voluntarily stepping aside as the ruler of a prosperous nation."

Scopes Trial: "Hollywood has little regard for the truth. Its movie version Inherit the Wind changed everyone's name, thereby preventing libel suits, and changed the facts in order to ridicule religious belief. Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election - probably the only time a candidate has lost the Presidency due to losing his home state. If Tennessee had a high level of belief in evolution comparable to that of East Germany, then you can bet Gore would have won his state and the Presidency."

The Da Vinci Code: "Dan Brown is responsible for feeding millions of readers a pack of lies cleverly wrapped up as a historically accurate novel."

Holocaust: "The Holocaust was the massacring of the Jewish race during World War II. The Germans are not to blame for this but the Nazi are. Besides 6 million Jews dying, 3 million Christians were killed also along with many priests and nuns. This is a very touchy subject for the Jews and is not often discussed amongst them."

Communism: "Communists believe that if they share everything, no one will ever have to work."

Most of the articles in Conservapedia are scrupulously sourced. For example, the entry on Isaac Newton -- "Sir Isaac Newton was one of the inventors of calculus and the propsed [sic-whoops!] the theory of gravity (It should be noted that gravity, like evolution, is just a theory and has never been proven to be true). He was a Devout Christian whose discoveries were inspired by God." -- refers you to the Bible Code Digest, which proves that Newton was a devout Christian. Virtually all of the science entries cite books by Dr. Jay L. Wile, the respected author of homeschool textbooks.

Unlike Wikipedia, which is full of too much information that can easily confuse people, most of the entries in Conservapedia are refreshingly brief, giving us just the facts we need to know: "Sufi: Sulfism [sic]; the tradition of Islam containing the beliefs dedicated to Allah." Concise, accurate, to the point. Who said encyclopedic necessarily means "comprehensive," I mean, besides Webster's dictionary, with its well-known liberal bias.

But Conservapedia is not just a dry, factual compendium of articles. In addition to scholarly encyclopedia entries, the Conservapedia contains "Debate Topics" which pose a number of provocative questions: "Crusades... Good or Bad?" "Did Jefferson Copy the Declaration of Independence?" "Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?" and "Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?" which refers to Franklin Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. This last topic has led to quite a debate between some frequent contributors and Andrew Schlafly, who not only believes that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, buts thinks it was a good thing he let it happen.

Unfortunately, Conservapedia doesn't have an entry yet for Franklin Roosevelt or for other minor Presidents like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman or Theodore Roosevelt, although it does have very illuminating yet succinct entries for Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and William Henry Harrison. But the encyclopedia is still growing and with your help its 3000 or so articles based on incontrovertible conservative facts will soon approach Wikipedia's 1.5 million entries filled with liberal lies. However, there is one disturbing lack that both encyclopedias share: Neither of them has an entry about this modest blog.

Crossposted at Shakespeare's Sister

Update: Someone has finally corrected one of Conservapedia's most egregious inadequacies and added an entry for this modest blog: "Jon Swift is 'a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture.' He maintains a modest log on the internet ('weblog,' or 'blog') that is entirely factual, rational, and most importantly, conservative. Jon Swift is not funny and has no monkeys in his family tree." Here is a screenshot (click on it for a closer look):


Share This Post


Jon Swift, Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Andrew Schlafly, Science, History, Christianity, Homeschool, Education, Religion, Evolution, Politics, OTA Weekend, Point Five Open Trackbacks, Church and State Weekend Open Trackback, Uncooperative Blogger Weekend Open Trackback, Bluestar Chronicles Weekend Open Trackback, Leaning Straight Up Weekend Open Trackback, Perri Nelson Open Trackback, DragonLady Open Trackback, Beltway Traffic Jam