Godless Linguistics

Gail Davis' "Godless Linguistics" theory is one of the best to appear on talk.origins in some time. In her own words:

What gave me the idea for it is that I'm a science teacher and there's an english teacher at my school that wants to have an Email debate. He's a creationist. So I came up with this one to get him to see what it would be like to have the shoe on the other foot.

Technically, the theory she presented was "Scientific Babelism", a bible-based alternative to the atheistic teachings found in modern schools. However, the original post's subject of "Godless Linguistics" seems to be more popular when referring to the topic.

Below are her original post, plus some followups that further explicate the horrors of Godless Linguistics and the purity of Scientific Babelism and related theories.

From: 2DAVIS@msn.com (Gail Davis) Subject: Godless Linguistics! Date: 24 Dec 96 02:21:13 -0800 Message-ID: <00002182+00014f65@msn.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins To all t.o. readers, Clearly, we can see the very structure of our civilization crumbling around our ears. Sexual perversion runs rampant as our once-proud moral culture slides ever closer to the gaping maw of oblivion. One need only turn on the TV to witness ample evidence of the degradation of our current Godless society, slipping closer to destruction with the wanton disregard for proper diction, and the torrid abomination of corrupted grammar! Why, just listen to the "music" of the young people these days. Such trash! The words slur together (when they can be understood at all) into a putrid mush of incomplete sentences and split infinitives. It's awful. And it has been PROVEN to induce young people to commit acts of violence, theft, and unwed pregnancy. And surely, it is no mere coincidence that this dire threat to the fabric of our very civilization coincides exactly with the indoctrination of our young people with Godless LINGUISTICS in the public schools. Our public schools have turned away from the source of Truth, to teach our children that our sacred English language has descended from other languages. The poor impressionable youngsters are taught AS A FACT that English words have certain "root words", even though this is only a theory. The FACT is, God Almighty created all languages complete when he confused mankind's original language as punishment for our transgression at the tower of Babel. But the athiest/lingusts don't want this mentioned in public settings, because it goes against their FAITH, and forces them to face their own accountability. So they have BANNED the teaching of Babelism, because they are afraid that it might expose the weakness of their own linguistic ideas. Is this fair? I don't think so. It goes against all that America stands for. Therefore, join me in the campaign to have a balanced and fair treatment in public education. All english teachers should be required to include Babelism as a valid alternate theory to Linguisticism, whenever the origins of the English language is discussed. Oh, of course we can expect opposition from the entrenched vested interests. They will point to certain similarities (i.e. "mother", "madre" "mater") as evidence of the relatedness of various languages. But this is a complete misinterpretation of the evidence. Clearly it is more economical for God to use similar phonic structures to designate similar meanings. Therefore, the existence of such similarities PROOVES that the various languages must have had the same author. Second, a language is a complex thing. The odds that some first speaker could randomly string together a complex series of sounds, and then multiply this by the odds that someone else would UNDERSTAND him, and the probablity could be calculated to be less than 1 in 10^500. That's a one with five hundred zero's. A statistical impossibility. Obviously, the first language must have a designer: God. Third, there is NO evidence that transitional languages ever existed. What use is half a language? A noun without verbs conveys no meaning! Sure, there is middle and old- English. But these are ENGLISH! A complete nontransitional language. We do not deny that micro-lingustics can happen, but this process can create only DIALECTS. There is NO EVIDENCE that a series of random micro-lingustic events can create a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE. I'll beleive in Macro-linguistics when I see a video tape of a child growing up in an Eskimo village suddenly become fluent in Armenian! It takes A LOT MORE FAITH to beleive in athieistic linguisticism than the truth of Babelism. So join me in the crusade: Babelism must be included in the public school English curriculum. There are only two theories which explain the origin of our language: Babelism and Linguisticism. Shouldn't they BOTH be given a fair hearing? Thank you. ********************* Visit a Classroom *********************

From: 2DAVIS@msn.com (Gail Davis) Subject: Godless Linguistics! Date: 25 Dec 96 03:17:23 -0800 Message-ID: <00002182+00014fb9@msn.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Milo King (notreally@parody.com) writes: >Carl (csjj@madeup.com) writes: >>Sorry. The word "woodpecker" is simply far to complex to develop >>naturaly, as has been PROVED to you many times before. >>Learn the model, Lingui-babbler. Instead of showwing you're own >>ingorance. >>Besides, no one has shown yet how a complete language could come from >> a dead gaggle of GRUNTS. >>see ya' >>The Bible says "Babelism", not Godless Linguistics >>In the beginning was the WORD, >>and the WORD was with God, >>and the WORD was God. >Carl, you're an idiot. It has been explained to you over and over that >alinguigenesis is not a necessary part of Linguistic theory. >Milo No, Milo. Carl's right! Linguistics paints a picture of languages increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is FALSIFIED. English did not develop from any earlier tongue. It was created complete and perfect by God at the tower of Babel. Join the crusade! English teachers should be required to include Babelism in their curriculum whenever the origins on our sacred language is discussed. It's the American way! Thanks, ***************** Visit a Classroom *****************

From: 2DAVIS@msn.com (Gail Davis) Subject: Godless Linguistics! Date: 26 Dec 96 06:42:56 -0800 Message-ID: <00002182+00014ff8@msn.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins TFarnon (tfarnon@aol.com) writes: (No attribution given) writes: >>>Here, here! Proof of the fact of divine creation of the English language >is >the total lack of any transitional languages. Dutch and German are not >transitional languages but completely seperate "species" in themselves. >Sure, >evolutionists will point to Anglo-Saxon texts as transitional but even >assuming that they are true ancestors to modern English (which I am not >willing to grant being a 'young earth' linguistic creationist), there is >no >evidence.<< >Guess somebody never lived in Germany close to Holland and Belgium...I >still can barely tell Dutch, Flemish, and the Plattdeutsch I learned as a >child apart. But then, I suppose none of those languages are >related...And, I suppose when I took Old Norse and Old English the reason >I never had to study was because some god blessed me, and not that my >knowledge of English and German, two related languages, allowed me to >"wing it" on a regular basis...I suppose I'd better not mention that my >Latin classes were what made learning Russian grammar easy (same sounds, >differently shaped letters)... Yes, there are similar sounds and structures in various languages. This only PROVES that they all had the same author: God! What you are forgetting, here, is that, according to the Godless Linguisticist THEORY, languages must change over time through a random sequence of improper useage and mispronunciation. According to this THEORY, some of these mispronunciations will have a selective advantage for the user, increasing his likelihood of attaining communication, thereby being passed on to subsequent generations. BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! It is obvious that mispronunciation and improper useage can only serve to HINDER communication! Therefore, it is impossible that such could provide a selective advantage for the user. Godless linguistics is a RELIGION. It takes A LOT MORE FAITH to believe in godless linguistics than to cling to. . . uh, I mean believe, that God in his divine and absolute love and mercy created English and all other languages to prevent people from working together to build a tower that could reach unto Heaven. Thanks, ********************* Visit a Classroom *********************

Newsgroups: talk.origins From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny) Organization: University of Ediacara Subject: Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the sand In article <335b0e29.5394428@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) writes: >In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the >sand_, Sherilyn wrote: > >>In article <33577948.1033566@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Matt Silberstein >> writes >>>In talk.origins, on thread _Re: Paul Myers buries his head in the >>>sand_, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) wrote: >>> >>[megasnip] >>> >>>>And Sherilyn may be surprised to learn, by your new criterion, >>>>just how many ad hominems 'e is guilty of. >> >>That pronoun has caught a nasty touch of apostrophism, see a doctor >>immediately. > >Isn't apostrophism a theological problem? No it is a real theory, one that Godless Linguists are afraid of and thus trying to hush-up to keep their cushy jobs as proofreaders and typesetters. From the start of our public education we are INDOCTRINATED in our public schools with Godless Linguistics and Orthographic Spelling! For years heathen Linguists have attempted to explain away the sudden appearance of things like colons and doublequotes within the written record, even going so far as to cobble up the Theory of Equilibrated Punctuation to explain why things like ( and [ always have a matching ) or ]. They claim the semi-colon is a "transitional form" between a comma and a colon (renaming the colon as a "full-colon" to emphasize this so-called theory) when they really know it is simply a period and a comma doing it missionary style (Linguists are so sexually repressed). But has any one of them ever seen a lower case 'l' mutate into an upper case 'P'? No, of course not - what could would a half formed 'P' be? Or worse, what about "V" mutating into "W" - half a W looks like a backwards N, no one would be able to read that and it would die out immediately. Even if it did make the jump all at once, where would the readers to read it come from, huh? And what about writers: "Whups - look at this new letter that just happened!" No, it's just too silly for anyone with an open mind to believe. I mean, they can't even explain why the period is always at the >end< of the sentence, and not in the middle somewhere (talk about missing transitionals!) - they always claim that they can produce such a sentence in the lab, but has such a one ever been seen in a scientific journal? Ha! Apostrophism is the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION for the typographical record as we know it. While it's too complicated to explain here, let me assure you that Top Scientists have verified Apostrophism by hurling basketballs into racks of linotype. And yet the so-called 'peer-reviewed' journals have not published any of their papers! We here at the Institute for Catastrophic 'Riting have the answers! We know where the letters go when you make a contraction like "can't" from "cannot" (there's another missing transitional from you - anyone ever see a "can'ot" or a "cann't"? Of cours'not). Read our newsgroup alt.apostrophism for the real, uncensored story (which you certainly won't get if the robomoderation of t.o passes preventing us from spamming the TRUTH over all of Usenet). Remember, Splifferd the @ says: A Mind Is A Terrble Thing To Baste - It Takes Forever And The Oven Is Always Hard To Clean Afterwards. -- Christopher Heiny Professor of Bizarre Theories University of Ediacara Offther-Hocking Chair of Lunar Influences chris@eso.mc.xerox.com

Obviously, the first language must have a designer: God.

And obviously the first language just popped up, it didn't develop slowly. And the reason new words come up is because god isn't perfect and didn't make a good enough language at first. "word is born".

Linguistics paints a picture of languages increasing in complexity over time. But the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is FALSIFIED.

Isn't increasing entropy => more complex languages, ie, exactly the opposite? oh well.

>>Sorry. The word "woodpecker" is simply far to complex to develop
>>naturaly, as has been PROVED to you many times before.
>>Learn the model, Lingui-babbler. Instead of showwing you're own
>>ingorance.

>>Besides, no one has shown yet how a complete language could come from
>> a dead gaggle of GRUNTS.

I must say, this is a perfect parody of 'karl' who constantly harps on about "Evo-babblers" never being able to prove that we all came from a "dead puddle of GUE!" (even after being told several thousand times that the correct spelling is "goo" and that evolution makes no such claims).

Rather amusing. Not a logical argument (it's simply argument by ridicule), but it is an effective and accurate satire of many evolution debates I've seen on USENET.

But the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe must move toward INCREASING ENTROPY, which means that languages should become LESS complex over time, not more. Thus the Linguisticist THEORY of language origins is FALSIFIED.

This kind of grotesque misunderstanding and misuse of thermodynamics by creationists is really irritating. It is almost like this person is being intentionally stupid. First, higher system complexity generally equals higher entropy (though this isn't even a direct relationship), all other things being equal, so the author doesn't even understand the terms. Second, total entropy increases in any CLOSED system. Note that this is why increased complexity in organisms on earth does not violate the same rule; huge amounts of energy are expended (from the sun, etc) to create relatively tiny decreases in entropy and fortunately we have lots of energy to waste. Even the act of constructing concepts within your brain (an entropy reducing function) actually generates 10^8 more entropy than is reduced when you take everything into account. The only way the 2nd law of thermodynamics is ever "violated" is when people confuse an open system with a closed one.

This kind of grotesque misunderstanding and misuse of thermodynamics by creationists is really irritating. It is almost like this person is being intentionally stupid.

BINGO! It's a parody of stupid creationist arguments written by an evolutionist.

BINGO! It's a parody of stupid creationist arguments written by an evolutionist.

And if you've ever read talk.origins you would know that the parody arguments are based on the arguments of real posters there. The "Dead gaggle of GRUNTS" line was satirizing a loon named "karl" (who used some distorted images of woodpecker anatomy to "prove" creationism somehow) and the line about Splifford was parodying a proponent of Catastrophism named Ted.

I read talk.origins quite a bit but haven't in the last year or so. I'm familiar with Ted, though.

Just interesting that someone seemed to have been fished in. Though, if the explanatory material had been removed, and the e-mails presented here as an article, I'm fairly convinced you would have fished in some creationists who would have agreed with it.

I read talk.origins quite a bit but haven't in the last year or so. I'm familiar with Ted, though.

I only lurk around every now and then -- I've not enough scientific knowledge or background to provide much in terms of support, but the creationist arguments tend to be so bad that even I can tear them apart from a logic aspect.
karl has been MIA for some time, dunno about Ted. Ed Conrad is back, as is John McCoy (aka Nameless) who is championing Ron Wyatt's chariot wheels.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.