Random Asides

‘Slime-Snake-Monkey-People’ of the World, Unite!

I’m going out of town for a few days, and when I get back, I’ll post more about our reading selection for the month. But for now, here’s something that will, I hope, make you smile, or at least snicker.

The author of a book on creationism is trying to ridicule us nasty evolutionists into jumping ship. Robert Bowie Johnson Jr.’s new book, “Noah in Ancient Greek Art,” claims that ancient Greek art clearly shows the story of Noah’s Ark, meaning that the story must be true if the ancient Greeks thought it was. Most of the ancient Greek art I’ve seen clearly shows naked boys playing leapfrog or standing around flexing their muscles. Even so, I’m not sure how Noah showing up in Greek artifacts would suddenly mean creationism is true. I probably won’t read the book to find out, either.

To shock the Darwinists out of their denial of the overwhelming evidence in Greek art for the reality of Genesis events, the author urges Creationists to refer to evolutionists as what they imagine they are–“Slime-Snake-Monkey-People.” Mr. Johnson, who holds a general science degree from West Point, also suggests that since Slime-Snake-Monkey-People insist they evolved over millions of years through a countless series of random mutations, Christians should also refer to them as “mutants.”

Well, I’m happy to be a Slime-Snake-Monkey-Person, or even a mutant (ala X-men). Anyone know where I can get some shirts made up? Rebecca, how about a slime-snake-monkey-person theme for next year’s calendar?


Donna Druchunas is a freelance technical writer and editor and a knitwear designer. When she's not working, she blogs, studies Lithuanian, reads science and sci-fi books, mouths off on atheist forums, and checks her email every three minutes. (She does that when she's working, too.) Although she loves to chat, she can't keep an IM program open or she'd never get anything else done.

Related Articles


  1. As I blogged about a day or two ago, this is just one more entry in the long litany of things creationists say that are tragically more accurate and insightful than they seem to realize. I mean, the particular taxonomy is utterly bonkers, but the underlying theory is plenty sound!

  2. Bad: He don't need none o' them heathen books.

    I had no idea I was a slime-snake-monkey-mutant this whole time. Talk about your secret origins!

  3. The slime and monkey parts are correct as far as I know, but I'm pretty sure that primates are not derived from snakes.

  4. As someone writing my dissertation on Greek Art, I can tell you right now that this guy not only knows nothing about the subject, but also nothing about ancient mythology or history. Of course, Noah himself is derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh – a much more influential story in the ancient world than the Noah flood story, which was relatively obscure at the time. The Greeks have their own flood story, but it does not involve Noah, (it involves Deucalion) or the saving of animals, and does not show up on their art, to my knowledge. What he's calling "Eden" in Greek art is a completely different Greek myth (many of which involve snakes). Labeling someone's art that you don't understand with a story you happen to have heard of IS NOT HOW YOU INTERPRET ART!! Ignorance alert!!!

  5. "The slime and monkey parts are correct as far as I know, but I’m pretty sure that primates are not derived from snakes."

    Nope, neither of those are correct either. Slime Moulds emerged long after our line of ancestors separated from theirs, and the term "monkey" is generally defined to apply only to two different branches of our primate cousins… but not to our common ancestor with them (which is screwy, but what are you gonna do?)

    For an awesome handy guide to our ancestry AND our current classification (since, according to common descent, they are one in the same!), check out Aron-Ra's neat-o page on the subject.

  6. According to wikipedia (and Penn Jillette) "apes such as chimpanzees and gibbons are often called monkeys in informal usage, though biologists don't consider them to be monkeys."

    So we could stretch a point to include humans as a monkeys in an informal sense, since we are basically a species of chimpanzee. Slime I don't know about… I know there were algae mats in the precambrian that might have been pretty slimy, but I don't think that we evolved from them. Snakes are right out, though. How about fish-lizard-monkey-people? Or just lizard men.

    I am, in fact, the Lizard King.

  7. "Also. do you think this guy even considered the possibility that the depictions he features are actually inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh?"

    That would require them to consider the possibility the the Noah story is just a rewritten version of Gilgamesh. We simply can't have that, can we?

  8. Reminds me of a friend who, upon hearing a couple of kids yell 'oi, fat lezza!', turned around and said 'yes?'

  9. mollishka said,

    … so does this mean we should refer to creationists as Dirt People?

    We could call the males dirt people and the females dirt-rib people.

    It never ceases to amaze and annoy me that the religious have the gall to ridicule evolution, when their version of things is so very ludicrous. Talk about pusillanimous.

  10. you should *not* use "dirt people", because it is too close to "mud people", which is what a large group of fundy white supremacists call non-whites.

    Look up "Christian Identity" for more crazy shit.

  11. hmmm


    "…And God breathed life into him…"

    oh! oh! oh!


    God dwells in the spirit realm, even in accordance with Christian dogma. Therefore his exhalation is actually the gaseous refuse of his spiritual being. Creationists believe they were made with the stuff God exhaled (ie no longer wanted). And so, they were made with spiritual refuse.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button