Joe also has an excellent (as in disturbing) website, joecienkowski.com and last, but by no means least his twitter account, at twitter.com/JoeCienkowski is guaranteed to raise more than a chuckle in even the coldest of godless heathen hearts—no, really! Some of this stuff is pure comedy gold—although it does slightly lose its lustre when you realise Joe really does think this stuff makes sense—and that’s really what I wanted to delve into with this article.
Joe—and millions like him—really do think that rational people hold certain things above criticism. Indeed they think in very black and white terms about the scientific method as a whole. They think—and we must assume they do so quite genuinely—that if you ‘believe in science’, that means you cannot also believe in God. This speaks volumes about the lack of enthusiasm with which science is being taught in schools, as much as it tells us about the degree of success the anti-science movement is enjoying among an albeit tiny, but growing minority of fanatical religionists.
Let’s take a look at some of the things Joe tweets in response to some very straightforward questions about his various assertions, to illustrate that point further. Before I begin, I should make it clear at this point that I did attempt to contact Joe on several occasions, to allow him to respond to what is by far his most popular claim; that he can prove Darwinian evolution is the religion of atheism and a false science. See here and here and here. His response to my open invitation to explain how he acquired, falsified and presented his findings for peer review was not forthcoming.
This is a random sample of Joe’s tweets taken over just a few hours, on the 17th and 18th of May, 2010.
1. @Lazarus_Eden lol, Im not a scientist, but know there’s no ‘macro-organism’. microorganism is a microscopic bacteria or protozoan
2. Richard Dawkins said at the end of the movie, Expelled, that may be aliens created us. So, he has a ‘creator’. And, at best agnostic now
3. @scott_hurst I love physics. I love geology. I love biology. But, evolution has no part, since its a bad theory with faulty assumptions.
4. @Orlandin if evolution was true, we’d see 1. life from nothing 2. live creatures between kinds 3. fossil in between. We find nothing!
5. @WarriorBanker I’ve seen all the fossils. There are non transitional. You want to see that but it’s not there.
6. Evolution is religion. Evolution is atheism’s creation story. Evolution is absolutely impossible logically and scientifically and theologic
7. @scott_hurst Scott, you must believe an old earth for your stupid evolution theory. You’ll make the evidence fit, even though it doesn’t
8. @Nickdrumr2 @WarriorBanker Atheism is naïve irrational unscientic illogic and invalid position you must completely dissociate from reality
9. @scott_hurst LOL, funny how the Bible is wrong about a scientific method that wasn’t invented yet. Seem absurd your argument yet?
Let’s go in reverse order and start with reply number 9. What Joe is saying here is familiar to those of you who’ve seen up-close the methods of the various anti-science ‘preachers’ out there, who specialise in the so-called young-Earth theory, such as those seen in this video (warning, contains graphic child abuse).
It’s your common-or-garden straw man argument—and a particularly weak one at that. It goes like this. In the case of young-Earth advocates, when faced with the reality of the fact that everything written in the bible was specifically crafted as a parable, by a people whose method of writing have been understood by biblical scholars for hundreds and hundreds of years to have been entirely allegorical, the creationist will, rather than dwell for too long on the absolute disproof of their claim that the bible itself allows for a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth, instead rely on the fact that the bible is a very old book and therefore couldn’t possibly contain certain phrases or modern meanings, such as those used in geology, palaeontology and in both radiometric and carbon dating—two entirely separate methods of acquiring the age of material, which proves the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old.
The young-Earth patter, typical of those who’ve read John Morris, Tas Walker, Arthur Chadwick and others instead avoids this altogether and goes something along lines of insisting only those who believe in a correct, modern interpretation of the bible are capable of understanding this and therefore believe in the true message of the bible as it was intended to be read. As proof of this anti-intellectualism in action, we see, in fact, from @scott_hurst’s original question, that he was simply asking about Joe’s evidence to support his assertion that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as opposed to the billions of years it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by every single branch of independently acquired yet mutually corroborative science known to man.
And therein lies the next semantic trap the Joe Cienkowski’s of this world like to crowbar their thinking into—in the hope, presumably, you’ll be stupid enough to crowbar yours into it as well. This is how deeply impressed with their own word-play these people, who are—make no mistake—coming for your kid’s school, in your town and on your street next, really are. “Known to man”, suggest there is another version of the truth, only “known to God”.
And so, the only way to decipher what God meant to say, is to leave yourself in the capable hands of your friendly neighbourhood young-Earth creationist; to wit, we see every other message from Joe punctuated with “buy my book, all will become clear” blatant charlatanism on a scale that would even make our friend Juanita Berguson blush. He’s literally saying that the creator of the universe speaks to him so clearly and directly, only by reading Joe Cienkowski fan fiction can you learn to speak to Him too.
Which brings us to reply number 7. What’s clearly happening here, is that Joe is hoping no-one will notice he’s using the same advice given no-doubt on several occasions to him, except he’s turning it back on those who handed it out. Why Joe, you sly fox! Only trouble is, pointing out the logical inconsistency of asserting something must be true, because of how many people assert it, doesn’t register with Joe, so instead he inadvertently reveals how little of this salient advice he actually took on-board.
Now, to be fair, this is partly because all Joe is actually concerned with, once you boil it all down, is sounding like he has thought about every angle those godless rationalists, with their “facts” and “evidence” can come up with. But in reality his every word illustrates how truly incapable of forming an opinion of his own he really is.
Some of his “best” moments are text-book Kent Hovind / Ken Ham. Worryingly, however, most of it is “I’m right and if you don’t like it, fuck you” atypical idiocy. I say worrying, because it shows that the tactics of the aforementioned are flourishing among the ‘can’t think, don’t think’ brigade and taking on a life of their own. This shows that, for all our efforts to point our collective fingers and laugh out loud at the answersingenesis cabal, all the Tim Minchin video uploads to YouTube in the world can’t help the people we should all be concerned with protecting the most. The Joe Cienkowski’s of this world simply aren’t getting the very serious message; that it is just flat out wrong to lie to people for fun and profit and we won’t leave you alone until you stop.
Reply number 5 is that old chestnut about transitional fossils. It never ceases to amaze me how insistent creationists are that they’ve read the evidence in support of Darwinian evolution by natural selection and yet in their fastidiousness they somehow managed to miss the fact that, not only is every single fossil ever discovered transitional, but that Darwin himself predicted the discovery of yet more fossils that would prove his theory either true or false—and that’s before we factor in the independent yet mutually corroborative evidence from genetics. So quite what Joe is going on about in reply number 4 I dread to think, but I think it’s fairly safe to assume somewhere in the belly of his book he believes he’s covered this in some detail—which almost makes me want to buy it to find out. Curse you reverse phycology!!
So, fully intending to give Joe the right to reply to this article, I leave you with this tweet from the man himself posted just moments before hitting “publish”…
I show God exists with real, logical, scientific proof and reason to believe in God. I say there’s plenty of evidence of God.
…and while inviting Joe to comment on all of the above, I finish with a reiteration of the question which originally arose in this thread on the child abuse inherent to creationist wilful idiocy.
What, to you, Joe Cienkowski, would stand as reasonable evidence to prove you are mistaken? What could your smartest critic say, to convince you, you are wrong?