Russell’s Law

Posted By on February 20, 2007

“It Is Impossible To Distinguish A Creationist From A Parody Of A Creationist”

.: In my last post I linked to what I thought was a clever parody of creationist thinking, Argument by technobabble? I’m still certain the author is a crafty prankster, especially after reading this interesting analysis of the author’s name.

.: But like all great stories, there’s more. Taking a cue from Gandhi, hblavatsky writes:

1.First they ignore you: Leading ID researchers such as Behe, Dembski and Ujvarosy have been prevented from publishing their work in many peer-reviewed journals. It’s not that our research isn’t good enough, it’s just too radical for the mainstream biological establishment.

Ask yourself, why is it that most mainstream biologists refuse to debate the Evolution controversy with us? I suspect that it is part of a deliberate and organized conspiracy to marginalize our exciting and important discoveries.

2.Then they fight you: The evolutionists have started an unprovoked war against us. They will stop at nothing at all to restrict our academic freedom until every American kid is taught the lie of evolution.

At this stage their goal is to frighten anybody who dares to oppose Darwinism into an oppressed silence. The recent Dover trial shows that evolutionists are prepared to use every trick in the book to keep their foothold, but like the oppressors that Ghandi fought, every act of suppression only hastens the revolution. America has seen what neo-Darwinists are capable of, and will not be so easily beat the 2nd time.

3.Then they laugh at you: That awful film “A Flock of Dodos” is only the tip of the iceberg. When unhinged evolutionists know that they have lost the argument they can only resort to mockery and cruel ad-hominem remarks.

If you search Technorati search for external comments about Overwhelming Evidence, you will notice that the overwhelming proportion are written by neo-Darwinism apologists who have nothing better to do than to mock us. For example, this article by “90% True” is probably less than 1% true. He unfairly attacks OE Blogger Quizzlestick for daring to reveal the scientific applications of ID philosophy.

Internet nut-case “Shelly The Republican” is no better. Her mockery takes the form of copying a number of our articles without permission. As you can see, she has taken one of my articles and added what she believes are humorous images in order to use my words against us. I am considering legal action against her organization on the grounds of blatant copyright abuse. If your articles have been stolen by this site I urge you to contact me as soon as possible. If we work together we can silence these jokers.

.: I’m honored, I really am. At this point I see two options: I can risk taking these people and their writings seriously, or I can treat them as the clever jokes they are. If I opt for the former, and incontrovertible evidence surfaces that proves they are in fact parodies, I’ll be the dope who didn’t get the joke — and nobody likes being that guy. However, if I smile and go along with the joke, and it turns out these people really are serious . . . well then that doesn’t necessarily reflect bad on me, now does it?

.: As it happens, I know one of the moderators of Overwhelming Evidence personally. He’s on my university’s quizbowl team, and I know as well as one can know that he really is an intelligent design creationist. But it brings me no end of joy to see such a terrible waste of internet resources overrun with uncontrollable hijinks from posters like hblavatsky, HaEris, and TroutMac, the latter of which wrote this hilariously bad bit of reasoning:

I like to think of it this way…think of DNA as a set of blueprints, like for a building of some sort. On the one hand, you’ve got blueprints for a simple “organism”… let’s make it a storage shed. One room, a pair of doors, a roof, etc. Pretty simply. Maybe one page is all it takes to describe how that shed is built. Now, compare that to blueprints for a 4 bedroom house. Now you’ve got multiple rooms, a bunch more doors, plumbing (that’s a whole new system there… the shed didn’t need plumbing) and electrical (also a whole new system), windows, insulation, etc. This might be a 20 page set of blueprints. The question is, how are you going to get all the new information that describes how the 4-bedroom house is built from JUST the information for the storage shed? Never happen.

.: You’d almost have to be a real creationist to be able to write such confused gobbledygook. And the best part is: if it were legitimate creationist thinking, there’s no way a reasonable moderator would keep it while discarding a perceived parody, because there’s no way they could tell the two apart!

.: Now, I realized I’ve made a (somewhat) serious charge against the people at Overwhelming Evidence. I think, what with the available (and hilarious) evidence, it’s reasonable for me to conclude that OE has been overwhelmed with parodists. BUT, like a good skeptic, I’ve an open mind and will still consider the possibility that these people are completely, utterly, and cluelessly honest.

About The Author


8 Responses to “Russell’s Law”

  1. Pharyngula says:

    I’m assuming many conservatives are embarrassed by Conservapedia…

    At least, I hope so. The “conservapedia” is supposed to be an alternative to Wikipedia that removes the biases—although one would think the creators would be clever enough to realize that even the name announces that Conservapedia is planning….

  2. Randi Mooney says:

    So which of the “moderators” do you know? As far as I know the only real creationists who post regularly are “Patrick”, “SChen24” and “TroutMac”.

  3. Funny. These guys are so dumb you couldn’t ask for a better set of stooges:

    “(Mahatma Gandhi, former prime-minister of India)”

    Really? That’s news to me, and the rest of the world — that Ghandi was once the PM of India…bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha

  4. says:

    […] site for teen scientists to discuss the exciting and important theory of Intelligent Design. The growing consensus is that this site is populated by approximately 50% trolls, 25% ID opponents leaving a […]

  5. […] about it, the more I’m convinced you’ve become a parody. It’s an interesting phenomenon among conservatives, so don’t feel too embarrassed if my conclusion is incorrect and you do […]

  6. […] Evidence. I don’t know for sure if the poster is a parodist or a real creationist (Russell’s Law, remember?), but that hardly matters. I want to focus on what Chen, a bona fide creationist, said in the […]

  7. Bill Seeley says:


    Who was Russell anyway? Bertrand? Edmund? Peter?


  8. Vilma says:

    Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and fond thwt it is truly informative.
    I’m going to watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate iff you continue
    this in future. Lots of people will bbe benefited from your writing.


Leave a Reply to 90% True » Sam Chen Once More