Privates by Satan

| 116 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

Okay, I fully admit that in the larger context of the creationism/evolution controversy this might seem a pretty small quibble, but I think it is revealing that creationists seem to have a real problem with biological structures that we among the laypeople might refer to as boobies, beavers, and the weenus. (I’m particularly fond of the term ‘weenus’, having first come across it in Frank Zappa’s autobiography, a truly interesting read.)

Answers in Genesis recently did their usual blathering while critiquing Chicago’s Field Museum’s new exhibit, Evolving Planet. I won’t go into any of their usual silliness; you can read it for yourself here.

They show images of many of the displays, each with a link to a larger view. Except that, and this is the funny thing, the second to the last one does not have such a link. It happens to be an image of what a female Australopithecine might have looked like in the flesh. It’s pretty obvious this was not just a misstep on the part of the web content administrator. No, you can’t link to a larger picture of Lucy because she has boobies.

According to AiG President Ken Ham, “We didn’t link to a larger view because boobies aren’t biblical. I mean, they may be mentioned in there somewhere, I haven’t really done a text search or anything, but murder is in the Bible too, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay. So even if boobies are in the Bible we still shouldn’t look at them or acknowledge they exist. Unless it’s between a married man and woman in the privacy of their own bedroom… with the lights off… and only if they’re trying to make a baby.”

Okay, Ham didn’t really say that, at least not that I know of. But I can’t imagine any explanation that would be any less absurd.

But what the heck are they afraid of here? Are they concerned that adolescent Christian boys are going to get turned on by a picture of an Australopithecine and immediately go for their weenus? I can’t think of a better argument for comprehensive sex education!

LITTLE BOBBY: (in his sex education class): Mrs. Vanderhorn, would sex with an Australopithecine be okay? MRS. VANDERHORN: My God, Bobby, you are sick! Get out of my class before I call security. LITTLE BOBBY: (sheepishly, standing to leave the classroom.) Sorry, Mrs. Vanderhorn.

If this were an isolated incident, I’d probably not have given it much thought. But take, for example, the creationist book Body by Design, which purports to “define the basic anatomy and physiology in each of the 11 body systems from a creationist viewpoint.”

Now I’ve flipped through this book before, and it’s nicely done with quality illustrations even if the text is standard creo claptrap. But once you come to those typical kind of images of the human body with all the muscles and tissues and gooey stuff showing you realize these Barbie doll smooth individuals have no genitalia!

So what the hell are they? Male… female… Boy George? (I’m a Culture Club fan and I think the boy is dreamy, so please, no flame emails calling me intolerant.)

How are kids supposed to react to this supposed textbook when they see these pictures and then look at themselves in the mirror? What if little Bobby gets all freaked out because he’s got this thing between his legs that the book says he shouldn’t, so while his parents sleep he grabs a butcher knife and sets himself up for a career as a castrato?

What better way to tell children their bodies are dirty and nasty than to pretend parts of them don’t exist? Now that I think of it, I guess creationists do that with their brains on a pretty regular basis.

In the interest of clarity, I’ve gone ahead and added some minor edits to the description of Body by Design from the ICR web site, which I will be forwarding to them for their consideration. Now I was very careful to make sure my edits blend in with the ICR’s text as seamlessly as possible, so go ahead and see how many of my additional edits you can spot. I think you’ll find it quite challenging.

Body By Design by Alan Gillen

Body by Design defines the basic anatomy and physiology in each of the 11 body systems from a creational viewpoint (except the weenus). Every chapter explores the wonder, beauty and creation of the human body (except the weenus), giving evidence for creation, while exposing faulty evolutionistic reasoning.

Special explorations into each body system (except the weenus) look closely at disease aspects, current events and discoveries, while profiling the classic and contemporary scientists and physicians who have made remarkable breakthroughs in studies of the different areas of the human body (except the weenus).

Body by Design is an ideal textbook for Christian high school or college students as it utilizes tables, graphs, focus sections, diagrams, and illustrations to provide clear examples and explanations of the ideas presented (except the weenus) . Questions at the end of each chapter challenge the student to think through the evidence presented (and to not think about the weenus).

Dr. Alan Gillen is a biologist and zoologist with a doctorate in Science Education. Having taught biology for two decades at all grade levels, Dr. Gillen is presently a professor at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. (He reportedly has no weenus.)

I think the ICR will be thrilled to add adopt my revisions. Don’t you?

In closing, however, I think this does reveal a common thread that runs through all creationist thinking. If anything comes up that makes you feel uncomfortable, no matter how well supported by evidence and accepted by an overwhelming number of scientists, just pretend it doesn’t exist.

And that goes double for boobies, beavers, and the weenus.

2 TrackBacks

This is a war between two worldviews, which Skip explains nicely. Here's the short summary. WisdomIgnorance Biologists love boobies, beavers, and the weenus! Creationists fear boobies, beavers, and the weenus. Which side would you rather be on?... Read More

Clever Beyond Measure from Clever Beyond Measure on May 7, 2006 10:00 AM

I've been out of the blogging loop for the last week or so due to being busy with other things, so now it's catch-up time. There's a post at Pharyngula wherein PZ Myers makes note of a Panda's Thumb post Read More

116 Comments

See, the Intelligent Designer of the body is the Christian God. BUT! The Intelligent Designer of the weenus, beaver, and boobies is most definitely Satan. (forgive my lack of a church lady mimic)

I think this is my favorite post I’ve read on any blog this week. Not only do we get a big picture of Zappa but we get multiple uses of weenus, beavers, and some great observations of creationists and then this quote:

What better way to tell children their bodies are dirty and nasty than to pretend parts of them don’t exist? Now that I think of it, I guess creationists do that with their brains on a pretty regular basis.

Well, that would explain all that dry humping in the Garden of Eden. Boobies, beavers and the weenus didn’t exist until after the fall. Just like a carnivorous T. Rex.

Note to self: Email Ken Ham and ask him if the above is correct.

I blame it all on the Pagans. They should have put up a better fight.

If they mention the weenus they would have to explain why God keeps changing his mind on the proper appearance. Foreskins are okay at first, then they need to be hemmed after Abraham, either way after Jesus - foreskins seem to be kind of a problem for God. Best not to bring the subject up or he might change his mind again

Skip - Thanks for keeping us abreast of the situation. It is certainly stimulating and a situation that deserves close attention and a firm grasp of the essentials.

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins” (I forget exactly where that tale was told. I think it may have been just a molehill until someone, well,…).

Dear J-Dog,

Down boy! Down! No, stop it! Get off my leg, damn you!

hmm, is there any way you could work the words:

“Dark, hard, dark rubber wheels”

in your revisions, skip?

A weenus-less, beaver-less, boobies-less body might (or might not) take intelligence, but creating beavers and boobies and weenuses - that takes real imagination…

Helen Lovejoy against Michelangelo’s David: “It graphically portrays parts of the human anatomy that (as practical as they may be) are EVIL!”

I would suggest that the weenus is a very strong candidate for Behe’s IC. Far stronger than a flagella, don’t you think. I wonder when somebody would do the study on the IC aspects of the weenus. After all, what good is half a weenus? Did it just spring forth fully formed?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I find it interesting that the book is promoted as something that only “high school and college students who are willing to explore the intricacies of human anatomy and physiology in a logical, thought-provoking manner” should read. The quote credited to one Iris Jane Bardella, head of the UPSM Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology. First of all, the manner in which this quote is used makes it seem like an instant trump card as far as the ID movement is concerned. Only logical, thoughtful people can handle the idea that humans are the product of GodDesign. Which immediate raises my supsicion about its original use and context. Could it be that the quote was from a review which concluded that the book didn’t have merit and was instead employing a lot of sophistry to set up a seemingly plausible but vacuous position that only the logical, thoughtful people would be able to discern for what it really is? Or is this a genuine appraisal of the book from somebody who supports the ID movement (or at least the content of the book)? Google fails to provide me with answers. Secondly, how logical and thought-provoking can a book on human anatomy and biology be if it displays a sort of willful ignorance or attitude of denial in regards to the reproductive system? Does the textual portion of the book reflect the same sort of reproductivesystemBAD! idea that the sexless images give off? Does it advocate a sort of “Abstinence Only” mindset attitude, i.e. deny modern research and results and supply misinformation and ideological bias? It would certainly be in-line with the typical Creationist methodology.

Unfortunately, I have to confess to not reading the book thoroughly… or even much at all. Flipping through the pages, the only text I came across was standard creo nonsense, all of which I had read countless times before, so I didn’t delve into it. In other words, it was complete rubbish.

However, I can say that anything it said about sex ed could probably be trumped by the segment on the episode of The Simpsons where Bart’s class watches a sex ed video hosted by Troy McClore and starring two bunny rabbits. At the end of the spot, Troy tells the kids from on screen, “Now that you know how to do it, don’t.”

But what we know about sex ed from the Conservative Christian/Creationist crowd, the message is more like “We won’t even tell you how to do it.”

And how successful are such programs? Well, I recently read that of all the kids that take these pledges to obstain from sex umtil marriage, some 85% or more DO have sex before marriage, and because they have no proper sex ed behind them, are three times more likely to have unprotected sex.

That’s why I am encouraging all of you to post a link to my informative little piece on Christian web sites, so we may educate the masses the truth about boobies, beavers, and the weeneus.

Perhaps I’ll get some sort of public service award from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Oh boy! Tables and graphs! That should force me to use my imagination! P.S. Doctorate notwithstanding, they spelled Pensacola wrong.

If they start using “weenus”, let’s hope that creationist microbiology books don’t start having one-celled hammond organisms.

As I tool around town past the store, near Southpoint mall, which is labelled FAMILY CHRISTIAN something or other, and seems to be a clearinghouse for all things moral and appropriate, I have to say I chuckle at the fact that I probably couldn’t walk in and buy anything with the Creation of Adam on it. An all-time great piece of art, commissioned by christians for a church, and revered for centuries, is verboten to modern American christians. It would ruin children, don’t you know.

Heh. Reminds me of my favorite Engineer/Creationist joke:

So, three engineers are sitting around, and the mechanical engineer says “God must be a mechanical engineer. Just look at the skeletal system! The intricacy of the joints!” The electrical engineer says, “No, no. God is definitely an electrical engineer. The nervous system is a simply incredible network. Look at the number of elecrical connections in the brain! But the civil engineer speaks up, “Well, I know God isn’t a civil engineer. I mean what kind of idiot puts a recreation area in the middle of a waste-processing facility?”

It’s become such a commonplace that it’s surpassed cliche status, but just in case some poor soul has never seen it before:

What sort of an engineer would put an amusement park so near a waste disposal facility?

Maybe weeni and baginas are just embarrassing because they perform not just one but multiple dirty, sick, disgusting, utterly shameful, and absolutely essential roles. And as noted recently on Pharyngula, hyenas actually give birth through the functional equivalent of a weenus–a clitoris grossly distorted by lots and lots of androgen. Another stroke of brilliant design. Jehovah–short-bus god of foothills.

boobies and beavers and weenus

Oh my!

Toto - we’re Not In Kansas Anymore!

A thought. Would AiG have a problem with pictures of a cow’s udders or of a sow suckling her piglets? If animal boobie-equivalents are OK and Australopithecus boobies are not (as with human boobies) then are AiG trying to say that Australopithecines are human? Where do gorilla boobies fit in? What are the implications for creationism if Adam and Eve were Australopiths?

“Weenus” or “Weenii” has been debated throughout the ages. I see that you favor Prof. Zappa’s interpretation of the ancient scroll work found in a late Babylonian outhouse known as the “the shittery of Nimrod.” The possiblity that the scroll was privily used has not been categorically ruled out however which is why I must reserve judgment.

Boobies and tits are mentioned in the Summerian “grand list of bird calls” and attested biblically as “kinds” or “Barims.” The biblical sources seem to have confused boobies with doves (Song of Soloman) and the mammalian breast. It is not known if this was a transcription error or if Soloman had un-natural desires for birds.

Well, bonobos are clearly not human by cre’ist thinking, but you still never see them in zoos precisely because, unlike their chimpanzee cousins, they have a habit of publicly and unabashedly making use of said anatomical features at any hour of the day.

mark Wrote:

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins” (I forget exactly where that tale was told. I think it may have been just a molehill until someone, well,…)

There are three mass circumcisions in this “god-inspired” pornography: Genesis 34, Joshua 5 and 1 Samuel 18.

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins”

Seeing as how we’ve drifted way off the usual shipping lanes with this topic already, I feel justified to digress…

Circumcision.

Just what the hell was that all about and just how did the Jews come up in that idea?

OK, people do weird things to themselves - I live down the street from a guy with tattoos on his face - and I imagine this has been going on for a while, so I can see the first guy trying it on himself.

But how did he get the second guy to go along?

I mean these people were nomads in the desert.They had one technology - rocks!

Imagine you’re sitting there sharing a quiet moment with your goats - you wandered in the desert professionally, life back then probably consisted mostly of moments with your goats - and up comes good old crazy Eli, with a slight limp, bloody rock in one hand and phallus parts in the other.

Eli grins gamely though the pain and says “Yo Ishmael! look what I did! Want me to do you too?”

I don’t know about you, but I’m out of there! Forget the damned goats - I’m gonna grab Mister Happy and run!

To this day the only way to get anyone to cooperate is to sneak up on boys and get them when they’re too young to fight back, or the practice would die out overnight -I assure you that’s the only reason they got me, and I know I’m not alone on that.

Somebody enlighten me - how could something like this ever possibly catch on ?

If christianity and islam can catch on, is it that hard to believe that hacking up your penis can catch on?

There have been several protests in Belfast (usually by the Free Presbyterian Church) outside this organisation’s local centre:

http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M1_gotobrook.asp

A similar kind of attitude to the above I think. I’m sure I remember something about the Free P’s requesting that a nude statue be covered during an art exhibition !

Figleafism. That’s what it is, figleafism…

Here in Tampa Bay, Florida, there is an exhibit called “Bodies” at a local museum, that consists of various mounted human corpses from China, dissected, that have been plasticized to preserve them.

When it first opened, there was a big brouhaha over it, with some people and local politicos making noises about “the Chinese may not have gotten proper permissions from those people before they died” or somesuch. But no one was fooled — the REAL gripe was that the foaming fundies didn’t want kids looking at some dead Chinese guy’s willie.

What a bunch of tight-asses. Geez.

Well, bonobos are clearly not human by cre’ist thinking, but you still never see them in zoos precisely because, unlike their chimpanzee cousins, they have a habit of publicly and unabashedly making use of said anatomical features at any hour of the day.

Some of us here are old enough to remember the pre-Mercury Project days of the US space program, when chimps were used as astronaut surrogates to test capsule designs etc. One of these was a chimp named Enos, who, like all the other space chimps, was eagerly trotted out by NASA for lots of photo ops and publicity. Alas, Enos seemed to have a super-duper drive to . . well . . you know, and on one occasion, as the cameras were rolling, he interrupted his scheduled activities to drop his diaper and … well … you know.

The horrified NASA exec’s banished the poor chimp from the press, and he was known ever after as “Enos the Penis”.

True story.

Cork, Yep, that’s the explanation I recall reading. :)

Henry

How about the poopus?

There’s also an explanation for why all these strategies are good for given situations, but I can’t remember it.

perhaps you were thinking about sperm competition?

So Dr. Gillen has no elbows. You do know what a weenus is, don’t you? :)

A weenus is the rough patch of skin covering the elbow. Which means not only does everybody have a weenus, we have two of them. :D

That would be funnier if my 3rd-year University textbook on human Physiology, c. 1970s at a secular university, had actually covered the fascinating and complex glandular-and-hormonal system of lactation. Can we say, “Women don’t count, kids?”

Corkscrew, Re “There’s also an explanation for why all these strategies are good for given situations, but I can’t remember it.”

But I thought “so usually you won’t be playing the “whose sperm gets to the egg first” game with other males,” was the explanation (in shorthand). In a bit more detail: If in a species, a male’s sperm has to compete directly against sperm of other males, a larger supply of it will be advantageous up to a point. (Balanced of course against the disadvantage of the added weight, vulerability, and resource costs. )

Henry

No, it’s more complex than that – in some animals, there are sperm that serve specifically as “blockers” who entangle and slow down sperm from other males, allowing their team-mates to reach the, uh, finish line first.

Re “No, it’s more complex than that”

That figures.

Re “in some animals, there are sperm that serve specifically as “blockers” who entangle and slow down sperm from other males, allowing their team-mates to reach the, uh, finish line first.”

Now that’s a dirty trick. LOL.

Henry

What’s the deal with everyone using the words “beenus” and “weenus?” Maybe I’m too tired to get the joke. Are we not allowed the word “penis,” and “vagina?” I don’t mind “pussy,” either. It’s a much better animal than the dirty old beaver. Pussies clean themselves, beavers swim about in mucky old rivers. And Dick, Rod, Johnson, any of those man names are fine, but we’re not afraid of proper names, I thought.

Hellbound Alleee,

No, we’re not afraid of proper names. Some euphemisms are just way more hilarious than their more-official counterparts. I’m not sure why; they just are. Hence, terms like weenus dominate what would otherwise be a less-hilarious discussion.

Also, it seems like the threads that garner 100+ comments involve either god or frank zappa. I declare this to be direct evidence that frank zappa IS god.

…beavers swim about in mucky old rivers.

The beaver is a proud and noble animal, and if you keep slagging on it the entire nation of Canada may beat you up.

They will, however, beat you up very politely, as is their custom.

To complete the thread on Beatles apochrypha the only one who actually left the band voluntarily was the original bass player Stu Sutcliffe who stayed in Germany with his girlfriend after the Beatles were through in Hamburg. At this time Pete was still the drummer. I can’t vouch for this but rumor has it that Pat Robertson wanted to audition for the position because he thought that the Beatles manager Brian Epstein was “hotter than Fred Phelps is a rubber teddy”. When he was denied Stu soon died of an aneurysm once again proving that it isnt nice to thwart The Man Who Speaks For God. It has never been clear to me why Paul so readily took over bass which is usually thought to be less important than guitar.

This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen on PT. Haven’t been here in a while…

MS

Explanation: If the quote by Ken Ham is not actually a quote from him then the rest of this drivvle is unfounded creationist hate.

Stevaroni wrote:

The beaver is a proud and noble animal, and if you keep slagging on it the entire nation of Canada may beat you up.

They will, however, beat you up very politely, as is their custom.

…and we will apologize afterward, too.

Dr. Alan Gillen is a biologist and zoologist with a doctorate in Science Education. Having taught biology for two decades at all grade levels, Dr. Gillen is presently a professor at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. (He reportedly has no weenus.)

“Yes, it’s true, this man has no weenus.”

–Dr Peter Venkmann

Explanation: If the quote by Ken Ham is not actually a quote from him then the rest of this drivvle is unfounded creationist hate.

So antievolutionists don’t actually have a problem with secondary sex organs, and the creationist anatomy textbook really does have drawings showing all the parts?

Actually, those wild, sexy bonobos are on display at some U.S. zoos—about ten North American zoos have bonobos, according to their Species Survival Plan. I have seen nonplussed parents in front of the bonobo display at the Cincinnati Zoo trying to deal with questions of the “Mommy, what are they doing?” genre. For you parents of four-year-olds out there, “Wrestling” or “Playing” seem to be satisfactory answers.

At the Oakland zoo, this is primarily an, uh, issue with the camels. They hump (no pun intended) very conspicuously and often, usually lasting up to 30 minutes and accompanied by loud bellowing. In my experience, it’s quite impossible to tell any child over age 5 that they’re doing anything other than what they’re doing.

It’s also extremely amusing to watch the parents’ nervous expressions while this is going on.

I couldn’t agree more: analysis followed by rectification!

“Rectum? It nearly killed him!”

Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week!

Arden wrote

“Rectum? It nearly killed him!”

I thought that was funny the first time I heard it, something like 60 years ago. :) Though I recall it as “Rectum? Hell, lady, it kilt ‘um!”

RBH

“My brain? It’s my second favorite organ.” Woody Allen, Sleeper, 1993

Off by twenty years, or perhaps it’s a typo. I’m surprised no one else caught this.

One point which seems to have been overlooked: If Lucy’s boobies can still turn a few heads after 4 million years, it certainly gives hope to all woman “of a certain age” feeling that their charms have lost their youthful bloom.

Mmmmm.…crunchy post-modern goodness! Either Lucy is a human or she isn’t. If she isn’t what’s the big deal about showing her nekkid? And if she’s human, then she must be a transitional form.

Good point! If she’s not human, then what’s wrong with her boobs? Aren’t gorilla boobs okay for kids?

Anyway, I don’t know what to do about Lucy, but she sure treated Linus and Charlie like shit.

Evidently, since Frank Zappa, who without doubt was in league with Satan, introduced the term ‘weenus’, then that term must be a product of Satan’s plan to drag men and women into hell. Since, by association, the body parts that the term ‘weenus’ references are polluted, then, by analogy, as God buried fossils in the earth to test our faith regarding the origin of life, He must also have placed those body parts into his design as a way of testing our faith regarding the origin of babies. Now, if i can only figure out why God designed sarcasm.

well, here in Nawlins’ (new orleans) all the preacher types have gotten busted with hving hookers in their rooms. guess its OK, they only broke a coulple of rules. see the lights were off… after the hurricane, they figured OGD destroyed all the satanic worhipers of the flesh, becuase the boobie bars are plentiful here, but, actually, the french quarter DIDNT flood ??

Guess they think hes just got bad aim ;)

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 37672, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

Please contact me by ICQ: 884149169. I have a news for you.

id love to see a boys private.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Skip published on May 3, 2006 2:25 PM.

A call to action in the Journal of Clinical Investigation was the previous entry in this blog.

Animalcules is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter