Creationists Upset Over "Lucy" Google Doodle

[roddma]

A little late her, but creationists are ticked at Google for the Lucy Doodle earlier this week. I think the last comment is hilarious.
http://www.worldreligionnews.com/issues/creationists-are-upset-about-todays-google-evolution-doodle

[gustava]

I wondered if there would be blowback on that one.  Idiots.

[church_of_dog]

I am not merely an atheist but a pedantic proofreader atheist.  

Therefore, I didn't like the Doodle simply because it misspelled "Google" by giving it three symbolic Os 

 

[thebestusername]

Ha I knew it I knew it. Because Lucy has only 40% of its bones discovered then it becomes a popular straw man for creationist to knock down.

[EyeQueue]

Because everything everywhere absolutely has to revolve around them.

[roddma]

From Ken Ham:

As Google reminded us, today, November 24, 2015, marks the 41st anniversary of the discovery in Ethiopia of the australopithecine popularly known as Lucy. Today’s “Google Doodle” honors the supposed human ancestor and the drawing illustrates the worldview that believes in a supposed gradual evolution from ape to modern man, with Lucy in-between. According to evolutionists, Lucy is a human ancestor and walked on two legs, but Lucy wasn’t a human ancestor. She’s just an extinct variety of ape. Google isn’t promoting science—they are promoting an interpretation of the past that forms the basis of the atheistic religion of naturalism.… this Google Doodle highlights where our culture is headed. Our supposed evolutionary ancestry is increasingly being celebrated—but it’s nothing more than a major tenet of the religion of naturalism. Google isn’t promoting science—they are promoting an interpretation of the past that is a key idea in the atheistic religion of naturalism.

I didnt think world view was one word.

[artdecades]

The computers they use and the websites they visit are built by computer scientists. Computer scientists are still scientists who believe in, you know, science. Maybe they should just go off the grid if they are offended by what the scientists who built their internet believe.

[AmazonGrace]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/22/creationism-isnt-just-an-ideology-its-a-weapon-of-political-control

There is an appeal to creationism for certain people: it lies in the ability to submit to a myth without reflection, debate or real understanding. But the ultimate goal in promoting it as a point of legitimate pedagogical inquiry appears to be to coerce the obedience of a superstitious civic collective under a socially and politically regressive leadership.

And it’s being used in this election cycle to counter intellectual and academic freedom in educational institutions.

Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson have both expressed their support of creationism and denial of evolution, with Carson attributing the teachings of evolution to “the Adversary”, Satan. Carson has promised that, if he becomes president, he will make the US Department of Education withdraw federal funding from institutions that show “extreme political bias”.

betting extreme political bias in the creationist direction would be ok though

[August]

The computers they use and the websites they visit are built by computer scientists. Computer scientists are still scientists who believe in, you know, science. Maybe they should just go off the grid if they are offended by what the scientists who built their internet believe.

Not only that, but the google algorhyms are evolutionary, aren't they?

[imokit]

Sounds like it's time for a separation of church and search.

From one of the comments 

[CyborgKin]

Not only that, but the google algorhyms are evolutionary, aren't they?

Which leads to the question, what procedures do they have in place to prevent the inevitable evolution of human-level intelligence?

[GodsKnickers]

Speaking of things that make fundies go all fundirage, has anyone been following the stuff about Homo Naledi? Very cool stuff there.

[dpndetfarm]

When these people enter their church is there a cubby next to each coat hook to to leave their brains?

[Cats B4 Quivers]

I'd like to overshare because it is vaguely related to crazy creationists:

My mother firmly believes in creationism but in a slightly different way. Less Adam & Eve in paradise after a week of God made world building and more supernatural. On Friday, my mom and I spent the day together at her place. We had lunch. Talked about what she'd like for Christmas (her usual wishes of a million dollars and a gorgeous man). It was a nice visit. But then we had a disagreement when I commented about some item on the news about a dinosaur discovery. Boom! My mom refuses to believe dinosaurs roamed the earth a couple hundred million years ago. Rather, humans and dinos lived together. Got a little heated when she hollered: 

"You are so ignorant! You need to educate yourself because we lived with dinosaurs on Atlantis! I've read those books and life was beautiful back then!"

I decided to let it go because there is no changing her mind. It'll just be an ugly repeat of an utterly bonkers and one sided argument when she lost her temper and exclaimed that "too much sex means a weak and corrupted soul". We were not talking about sex. That and I'd like to point out half of her Christmas wish is not in the least spiritual or supernatural. But hey, moms. 

And I would not even approach the subject of Lucy with my mom. She does believe Planet of the Apes is factual. 

 

[CyborgKin]

The computers they use and the websites they visit are built by computer scientists. Computer scientists are still scientists who believe in, you know, science. Maybe they should just go off the grid if they are offended by what the scientists who built their internet believe.

Technically, websites are built by web developers, whose domain is more in the arts than the sciences, possibly with some (software) engineering thrown in.  Also, many creationists push a division between 'operational' and 'historical' sciences.  This lets creationists reject just the 'common ancestry of all life' parts as 'speculative' and 'non-repeatable', while holding onto all the 'observable' and 'experimental' sciences.  Many will even accept rapid speciation and adaptation, though with the caveat that the changes are 'within a kind' (e.g. all cats large and small, wild and domestic, from a single pair that came off Noah's Ark).  Yes, creationists can believe that living things change pretty fast, just not as far as the evolutionists say.  It's a crazy world!