In Other News Following The Story Below
[Article written by Joe Bob Briggs for the Wittenburg Door Insider]
"We were stunned," said Jose Aguilar de la Estacionamiento, Director of Basic Research at the university, at a morning press conference. "We were actually looking for the determinant gene for sphincter occlusion. It's one of those inadvertent discoveries that sometimes occur when you're doing basic science."
Aguilar said the results were so shocking that he withheld publication for two years while the DNA was taken from every member of the Iglesia Bautista Hugo Chavez mega-church in San Miguel Allende. He found a 99.7 percent correlation between the genetic makeup of the Baptists in that congregation and the presence of the three mutated genes that normally identify people with a tendency toward stiff necks, rigid sphincter muscles, and early-pattern baldness. Given the overwhelming evidence, Aguilar said, there was no choice but to announce his findings to the scientific community.
Instantly, there were ethical issues raised as Mexican Catholics besieged parish priests with questions about whether it was possible that their infants could grow up to be Baptists. But Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera urged calm, saying that the genetic anomaly was found mostly in tourist areas and migrant communities that had had extensive contact with American Baptists, especially those in southwest Virginia and East Texas.
When asked whether it would be ethical to perform genetic "repairs" on newborn infants found to have the suspect genes, the cardinal deferred comment. "At least," he said, "until we can receive guidance from Rome."
In Nashville, Southern Baptist Convention president Dr. Frank S. Page reacted to the announcement with skepticism early in the day, noting that Mexico is a Catholic country that is frequently dirty. "You never know what they use to clean their microscopes with," Page said.
Later in the day, however, conservative bloggers at Liberty University had acclaimed the new finding as the long-awaited discovery of the Elect Gene and urged Page to seek Congressional legislation that would prevent tampering with the "sanctified, predestined and holy" biological makeup of the Baptist faithful.
An opposite reaction came from the American Baptist Churches U.S.A. in Valley Forge, Penn,, where officials said the three genes proved that Southern Baptists were an "abomination" that had occurred because of strange sexual practices prior to the Civil War, and that now was the time to unite the Baptists by eliminating the "disease" of Southern Baptistry.
At this point, Page said he would have no further comment until the issue was referred to the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Among the findings in Aguilar's 378-page summary of research were that the three Baptist genes are usually dormant until about the age of eight, at which time the child will develop an irresistible urge to mumble platitudes about "salvation" that he hears from authority figures. The child soon acquires a propensity to wear ill-fitting synthetic-fiber formal wear and seek approval from bespectacled men wearing shiny patent-leather shoes.
According to Aguilar's study, by the time the child becomes a teenager, he starts wearing "Abstinence Till Marriage" t-shirts and interjecting "I love Jesus" at inappropriate moments as a way to annoy his peers.
At the adult stage, the nascent Southern Baptist develops an aversion to grain-based beverages and spends at least part of every day refusing to think about masturbation.
The gene has no further developmental value after the age of 22, Aguilar said, at which time the genetic Baptist marries a woman he ceases to have sexual desire for after approximately 45 days, then spends the rest of his life furrowing his brow at liberal atheists and trying to explain Jesus to stupid people who just don't get it.
March 19, 2007
Joe Bob Briggs
Door Science Correspondent
"We were stunned," said Jose Aguilar de la Estacionamiento, Director of Basic Research at the university, at a morning press conference. "We were actually looking for the determinant gene for sphincter occlusion. It's one of those inadvertent discoveries that sometimes occur when you're doing basic science."
Aguilar said the results were so shocking that he withheld publication for two years while the DNA was taken from every member of the Iglesia Bautista Hugo Chavez mega-church in San Miguel Allende. He found a 99.7 percent correlation between the genetic makeup of the Baptists in that congregation and the presence of the three mutated genes that normally identify people with a tendency toward stiff necks, rigid sphincter muscles, and early-pattern baldness. Given the overwhelming evidence, Aguilar said, there was no choice but to announce his findings to the scientific community.
Instantly, there were ethical issues raised as Mexican Catholics besieged parish priests with questions about whether it was possible that their infants could grow up to be Baptists. But Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera urged calm, saying that the genetic anomaly was found mostly in tourist areas and migrant communities that had had extensive contact with American Baptists, especially those in southwest Virginia and East Texas.
When asked whether it would be ethical to perform genetic "repairs" on newborn infants found to have the suspect genes, the cardinal deferred comment. "At least," he said, "until we can receive guidance from Rome."
In Nashville, Southern Baptist Convention president Dr. Frank S. Page reacted to the announcement with skepticism early in the day, noting that Mexico is a Catholic country that is frequently dirty. "You never know what they use to clean their microscopes with," Page said.
Later in the day, however, conservative bloggers at Liberty University had acclaimed the new finding as the long-awaited discovery of the Elect Gene and urged Page to seek Congressional legislation that would prevent tampering with the "sanctified, predestined and holy" biological makeup of the Baptist faithful.
An opposite reaction came from the American Baptist Churches U.S.A. in Valley Forge, Penn,, where officials said the three genes proved that Southern Baptists were an "abomination" that had occurred because of strange sexual practices prior to the Civil War, and that now was the time to unite the Baptists by eliminating the "disease" of Southern Baptistry.
At this point, Page said he would have no further comment until the issue was referred to the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Among the findings in Aguilar's 378-page summary of research were that the three Baptist genes are usually dormant until about the age of eight, at which time the child will develop an irresistible urge to mumble platitudes about "salvation" that he hears from authority figures. The child soon acquires a propensity to wear ill-fitting synthetic-fiber formal wear and seek approval from bespectacled men wearing shiny patent-leather shoes.
According to Aguilar's study, by the time the child becomes a teenager, he starts wearing "Abstinence Till Marriage" t-shirts and interjecting "I love Jesus" at inappropriate moments as a way to annoy his peers.
At the adult stage, the nascent Southern Baptist develops an aversion to grain-based beverages and spends at least part of every day refusing to think about masturbation.
The gene has no further developmental value after the age of 22, Aguilar said, at which time the genetic Baptist marries a woman he ceases to have sexual desire for after approximately 45 days, then spends the rest of his life furrowing his brow at liberal atheists and trying to explain Jesus to stupid people who just don't get it.
posted by The Raging Paradoxidation at
3/21/2007 10:07:00 AM
7 Comments:
I must say...that was a funny post.
Weren't you the guy that bad mouth Gene COok and also Paul Manata sometime ago?
Also,
"The Bible says it, that settles it, I believe it - while the sincerity sounds sweet, it can also border on naivety."
For a Christian, how exactly is it naiive to believe that what the Bible states, one believes in it?
You going to have to work out maybe a little more on what you are saying,as I'm not too sure
ah, Now I have to throw away my shiny patent-leather shoes.
Jimmy,
I did have a few posts about both of the names mentioned on my old blog but I would not refer to them as bad mouthing either party. I merely had some disagreements with some ideas/arguments that they put forth and that started an intellectual uprising with the 2nd individual that you mentioned.
In reference to your quote of mine from TNMA-
You would have to not only read all of my comments over there, but you would also have to have listened to the particular discussion for which the comments fall under. Just in case you have not, I'll put it very simply-
Gene Cook was putting forth an argument that said basically "even though I don't reject an evidential apologetic outright, I have to go with Biblical revelation first and foremost." He was talking about this in the context of the alleged discovery of the bones of Jesus. [which I do believe to be fraudulent] His claim was that just because the Bible said that "His bones are not on earth because He is in Heaven" that he would most likely give an automatic dismissal of the evidence. In other words, while he criticized the Mormons and Muslims for being fideists, he is really kind of doing the same thing.
When I say that it borders on being naive to just make statements like what you quoted me saying, what I'm saying is that there are some people who are uneducated enough in the realms of theology, psychology, history, and language that many of them actually do err on the side of a literal reading of many passages of scripture even when there is scientific evidences that seemingly contradict the Biblical claim.
Another way to put it is that there are some who refuse anything other than a literal reading of the Bible, and for them there isn't much room for any kind of extra examination, source or explanation other than what's there in black and white.
My mother in law is a prime example of this. She is a very sweet and sincere devout woman of faith whom I love dearly...but one day she had a very serious question as to why her KJV Bible referred to a unicorn if there really wasn't such an animal. My suggestion is that she would either have to a.) believe that there really was one at one time, b.) be open to the idea of the authors of scripture referring to metaphor or myth in order to try and communicate something, or c.) throw that passage out as being false. She became OK with the idea that perhaps it was OK that the author referred to a mythical creature to try and explain something.
My point is this- even though I don't believe that anyone will ever find the bones of Jesus [for any number of practical reasons] even if it were obvious that they were found there are many who would reject that plain fact because of what it would mean to their faith that they hold so dear. They would rather accept something in a book that said that it was impossible, than accept the fact that showed that it was.
So that's how it ties into the topic of the show. Gene says that he doesn't throw out physical evidence, but it certainly doesn't have near as much weight as his a priori presuppositions.
Thanks for responding
I'm taking Finals right now at school for friday, so I'm studying
will get back to this later
God bless
JImmy Li
uhhh last time I checked, the post was an article written by Joe Bob Briggs. Hello??!?!?!
Monstervision anyone?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home