SalCordova “responds” about his Noah’s Flood film idea… May 27, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Origins, Religion, Science, wingnuts.trackback
…and in so doing illustrates why ID is so intellectually bankrupt. He won’t bother to link to me, and I’ve learned my lesson about trusting Creationists to be honest, so no linkage from me. But what he says is absolutely hilarious:
I mentioned last year in the thread $180 million anti-God movie bombs at box office:
[...]To which a god-hating Darwinist by the name of Evil Bender responded:
A passionate romance takes place while God mercilessly drowns the world.
…
My favorite part, though, is that Sal thinks it will inspire people to “uncover the mysteries of the great flood.” Sadly for Sal, “Magic Man Done It” is still not a scientific hypothesis. And pop culture nonsense is still not a way to do science, or else we’d be using Dinosaurs as household appliances.Not so fast EvilBender, you godless Darwinazi. By the grace of God, I had a “chance” encounter with a movie producer who is laying the groundwork for just such a movie. It appears God placed the idea on the hearts of several of his people.
Thanks for proving my point, Sal! Even if this bunch of fundie Creationists does make the movie, that won’t invalidate a single word I wrote.
My point, as you can see in the (surprisingly non-quotemined*) excerpt above, isn’t that no one would make such a movie–movies about the “Great Flood” have been made before, after all–but that it won’t make anyone learn about the science of the flood, because that “science” doesn’t exist, and is just a bunch of Creationist magical thinking.
Naturally, Sal didn’t bother to refute that point. There’s no scientific merit in a movie based on anti-science, any more than there’s scientific merit in The Flintstones. There was no Great Flood circa 4,000 BC that drowned everything but eight people and 2 of each animal. Or was it seven of some? Seven pairs? At any rate, such an historical event never happened. And even if this film gets made, there is no chance it will advance science–only Sal’s Creationist agenda. As I said before.
But Sal apparently doesn’t realize this, since, like all the ID folks, he’s far more interested in PR than in actual science. Thanks for demonstrating that yet again, Sal!
(One more thing, Sal: I don’t believe in God, and so certainly do not hate him. I do think the God you envision–who murders almost all life on Earth because he’s angry–is a hateful, angry, petty deity. But as the Flood never happened, the God of the Flood story is certainly an imaginary deity, and so note worthy of “hate.” But keep using words like “Darwinazi.” They really help your credibility.)
*Though apparently Sal didn’t want to note that I mentioned “hydroplate theory” which he supports, a “theory” which can’t explain the flood, because for it to work everyone would be vaporized.
Well, something historical happened. I can understand your saying that the canonical Christian version of the flood did not happen. And I actually agree with you that there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. But nearly all ancient Near Eastern literature seems to suggest that something historical involving a devastating flood occured (Both Hebrew and Mesopotamian accounts talk about the flood covering the whole world, but that could certainly mean ‘the known world’ of their cultures, stopping at the desert). Anyway, theological arguments on this point will be fruitless, I’m sure, but there is some historical merit to the notion of a vast flood in ancient history, yes?
There’s of historical evidence for hugely destructive floods, I’d say, and every reason to think that is reflected in the Bible. Any people who lived on a Flood Plain would likely have that fact reflected, and I have every reason to think that such an event is likely the basis for the Genesis Flood narrative.
My problem is with calling it a worldwide flood, and “Creation Science.” We can say confidently that humanity was not destroyed the world over by a Great Flood, as you say.
Actual scholarship of the history that informs the Flood story is excellent, and I’m all in favor of it–but that’s not what SalCordova was advocating. My problem is calling one’s particular interpretation of the Bible “science,” not with trying to understand the Bible better. I’m all for the latter!
Note to self: I should probably not share my views of Calvinismology with EB, as his anti-science stance would not allow him to appreciate its technological and scientific intricacies.
(tee hee.)