The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Hovind's Poem

Ok, so I just read Kent Hovind's supposed "doctoral thesis" and it is so embarrassingly bad that I'm amazed the diploma mill he submitted it to even accepted it. Well, ok, not that surprised.

Don't bother reading it unless you're slightly masochistic like me. I do want to share, here and with the world, the poem Hovind wrote and included in his - I'll say it again - doctoral thesis comparing blind men to atheists. It's on pages 82-3 if you want to read the real McCoy. Enjoy...
Two blind men argued well into the night
about the great question, "Is there really sight?"
Said one to the other (and quite fervently)
"There cannot be colors or else we could see!
So take red and green and blue off the list.
If I cannot see them, they must no exist.
A crazy man told me the sky is bright blue.
I listened intently but I caught no clue
of anything out there to alter my mind.
I'm not deaf you know, I here perfectly fine.
Be quiet and listen, and then you will know
that colors aren't real. How dare they say so?
They tell me that grass is some sort of green.
It looks like the rest of the world that I've seen!
It tastes a lot different that jelly or cheese
(if I smell it too long it sure makes me sneeze).
It feels a lot different that ice cream or snow
but to say that it's green? I'd have to say no.
I will not believe it until I have seen.
There isn't a difference 'twixt red, blue or green!!
And so the men argued with all of their might,
and I couldn't show them that they were not right.
They cannot see colors because they re blind!
But I couldn't get the truth in their mind.
Until they are given the great gift of sight,
never, not ever, will they see the light.

Two atheists argued (on university sod)
about the great question "Is there a God?"
Said one to the other (and quite fervently)
"There can't be a God or else we could see.
So take that old Bible and God off the list.
If I cannot see Him, He must no exist.
Be quite and listen, and then you will know
that God is not real, how dare they say so??
A crazy man told me God lives up in Heaven.
I used to believe that when I was just seven.
But not that I'm older and wiser you see,
I will not believe it. You can't prove it to me.
I cannot sense God with sight taste or smell.
I do not believe in Heaven or Hell!
I've never heard God or felt Him at all.
If He's really up there, I wish He would call."
I said, "Listen fellows, you're spiritually blind.
You've only five entrances into your mind.
That limits your input. I wish you could see.
You can't fathom God or eternity.
There are lots of things that really are real.
It doesn't disprove God because you can't 'feel'."
So you two can argue the rest of the night.
There's no way to show that you are not right.
When you get to Heaven (or Hell if you please)
you'll understand God as you fall on your knees!
I wish you could see Him or hear Him somehow.
But that isn't possible where you are now.
To deny His existence is really absurd.
You'll have to believe Him and trust in His Word.
Amazing, isn't it? Such a concentrated dose of stupid in one place. You'd think that even computers in 1990 or '91 would have, I don't know, spell check or grammar check? I seem to remember having it in my first year of university, which was 1990. Hm, and you'd think that if you had access to spell/grammar check, you might want to use it to make sure your goddamn doctoral thesis was all crossed t's and dotted i's and such. I once bought two short works of lunatic fiction from a homeless fella that were better written that this mess.

Reading this makes me annoyed at the skeptical/atheist movement. If this is the level of intelligence/preparedness of the top players on the opposing team, why the hell haven't we routed them? How has this game not been stopped due to the "mercy rule"?

Seriously, if you have a bit of time and want a laugh, check out the paper. It's 102 pages, but most are worth the read just for the facepalm factor.

7 Barbaric Yawps:

At 20/12/09 4:13 am, Blogger Fall Garlic said...

Man that is just so amazingly annoying. I just love arguing the primacy of the bible by quoting verse from the bible. "Hey this is the best book ever, I know because it says so inside" Keep up the good work.

At 20/12/09 9:28 am, Blogger Heathen Mike said...

I know, eh? Circular argument, much? Geez....

Happy Holidays to the fam!

At 20/12/09 10:37 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't read the entire "Poem", but from the portion you posted, I think he stole it from Dr. Seuss.

At 20/12/09 1:39 pm, Anonymous Tomato Addict said...

> I think he stole it from Dr. Seuss.

No, Dr. Seuss wrote much better stuff.

Spell check was certainly available in 1990, but it might have been too early for grammar check.

At 4/1/10 10:13 pm, Anonymous CybrgnX said...

I like this poem!!! It perfectly illustrates what is wrong with most of the skeptk arguments and all the religious ones. The poem shows that you cannot argue with a blind man(religion) about rationality(green) because the arguments are emotional and meaningless to the blind man. Using the poem data how do you convince a blind man(everyone) that xrays are real???? You must use a long ritual of explaining the parameters, science, technology, examples of its detection to convince anyone.
All skeptx should read and learn from the poem that emotional arguments will never work on blind men.

At 28/4/10 10:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I simply can't understand how you totally disregard the poem's content and simply bash it's few spelling errors. I mean, honestly.

The poem quite simply illustrates that to deny the existence of God simply because you cannot see him spiritually and/or otherwise is silly, seeing how obvious his existence is by your very being.

At 29/4/10 7:44 am, Blogger Heathen Mike said...

Anon: Oh, I'm not disregarding the poem's "content". The spelling and grammatical screw ups are just more illustrative of my point - the lack of work ethic involved in a supposed doctoral thesis.

Plus, rhyming couplets, as was mentioned, are just so Dr. Seuss.

Your last sentence explains to me exactly how inane is Hovind's (and, presumably your) "reasoning". To think that a deity's existence is "obvious" just because we're here betrays a stunning lack of knowledge of basic biology and history.

It is because no one can "see God spiritually and/or otherwise" - you included - that we don't think he/she/it exists.


Post a Comment

<< Home