Pat Boone: Rhymes with … Maroon!

PAT BOONE seems to be a decent fellow, but somehow he keeps popping up in our sights. We’ve written about him before: Hey, Pat Boone: Shut up and sing! But like so many entertainers, he imagines that he has something to say of great profundity.

To your Curmudgeon’s delight, Boone makes an appearance in the pages of WorldNetDaily, an organ which we have previously recognized for its absolute absurdity. See: Buffoon Award Winner — WorldNetDaily.

It is with much pleasure that we present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Pat Boone’s Poor Darwin’s false religion, which appears in WorldNetDaily. The bold font was added by us.

Boone leads off with one of the oldest creationist arguments, the watchmaker analogy. It was famously stated by William Paley in 1802, but it has an older history than that. In Boone’s brain, this is the all-time killer argument that demolishes the wicked “false religion” of Darwin. Richard Dawkins wrote a book on this fallacy, The Blind Watchmaker, pointing out that this argument, like so many others, founders when its underlying principle is trivially extended to the question of who designed the watchmaker.

After describing the intricacy of the watch, Boone’s amazing fantasy is that “evolutionists” would declare that the watch naturally evolved. After claiming that this is how scientists operate, Boone says:

Anybody gullible enough to believe that sappy saga? No? Well, how about one even more farfetched and absurd?

The vast universe, operating in such dependable precision we can confidently send human beings a quarter million miles into space, all the way to the surface of the moon, and back, safely. Our earth, moving in quiet orbit around the sun, so perfectly placed that life of all kinds flourish, while just a little distance closer or farther away, and the globe would not support life at all. And the human body, to say nothing of the mysterious brain, is made of such a myriad collection of mechanisms and infinitesimal organisms, all functioning in unexplainable synchronicity, that all the scientists who’ve ever lived have yet to understand more than a fraction of its workings. And all of this just “happened.” No blueprint, no design, no intelligence, no creator or creation process. Just blind chance, and something called “evolution.”

Translation: I know nothing, but when I contemplate the universe and life and heavy stuff like that, my brain goes blank, which is proof that scientists don’t know anything either.

Let’s read on:

And not one Ph.D. I’ve ever heard – totally aware of one of the basic laws of science, “every action creates an equal and opposite reaction” – can hope to explain what the “action” was that created the “equal and opposite reaction” we call matter.

Creationists never seem to know when they’re in over their heads. Perhaps that’s inevitable. When one is always in over his head, all subjects are equally understood.

Then Boone devotes a paragraph to praising Michael Behe’s “wonderful book,” Darwin’s Black Box, after which he says:

The more powerful and probing our microscopes become, the more diverse and dizzyingly complicated the simplest building blocks become; each is a tiny pulsing universe in itself!

Jeepers! Each cell is a tiny universe. Who knew? Boone continues:

Here’s one more pertinent consideration, never reported by the most devoted Darwinian: Charles Darwin’s own statements of doubt about his theory. He openly acknowledged “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe … as the result of blind chance or necessity.” His subsequent disciples evidently dismiss that thought. Doesn’t fit the “Theory.”

Boone gives no source for that quote, but by a strange coincidence, we recently mentioned such a statement by Darwin, complete with a link to the source. It was in this post: Atheism, Science, and Darwin. Here’s what Darwin actually said — and we’ll bold the part that follows Boone’s out-of-context tidbit:

But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide….

No doubt you noticed — Darwin wasn’t talking about his theory. Isn’t creationism wonderful? Here’s another excerpt from Boone’s article:

With his “The Origin of Species” about to be released, he wrote to fellow British biologist George Bentham, “Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas. My only hope is that I certainly see very many difficulties of gigantic stature.”

Exactly. Charles Darwin birthed a flawed theory, and he knew it from the time of its first publication.

That quote can be found here: More Letters of Charles Darwin. You’ll have to search for it. It’s an accurate quote, but it’s sandwiched in between a discussion of plants.

What of it? It’s a letter from Darwin on the eve of publishing of his great work, and he’s being modest. He says that it’s easy to get carried away with the thought that one has found truth, but his hope — for himself, obviously — is that he’s not being dogmatic, because he’s aware of the difficulties. That’s an entirely admirable statement. Yet Boone claims that it’s a confession of scientific fraud.

Who ya gonna believe — Charles Darwin or Pat Boone?

Boone wraps up this brilliant piece by quoting “noted biologist” Dr. Jonathan Wells, who predicted that in 50 years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum. Wells is “noted” all right. We wrote about him here: The Genius of Jonathan Wells.

Boone remarks:

But 50 years could be enough to destroy the faith of two generations of our young, enough to replace it with a bankrupt false religion. Will we have the courage, the gumption, to make sure that doesn’t happen?

We have a suggestion: Behe, Wells, and Boone can eliminate that horrible 50-year period. All they need to do is find and publish some solid evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. What are they waiting for?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Pat Boone: Rhymes with … Maroon!

  1. “All they need to do is find and publish some solid evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. What are they waiting for?”
    Well, they could go through all that work, but the Rapture is right around the corner, plus they have to stop “the gays” from getting married, plus the Liberals put us in Iraq and crashed the banks and let China buy a bunch of US debt, and…

  2. MO says: “Well, they could go through all that work, but the Rapture is right around the corner …”

    That’s better than “the dog ate my homework.”

  3. Yes, obviously, because a simple phonecall will prove whether or not you have a dog.

  4. retiredsciguy

    MO says, “Yes, obviously, because a simple phonecall will prove whether or not you have a dog.”
    And if you wait a day or so, observing closely, you’ll see whether he ate your homework. Unless, of course, the dog has been virtuous and disappears in the Rapture.

  5. “And not one Ph.D. I’ve ever heard – totally aware of one of the basic laws of science, ‘every action creates an equal and opposite reaction’ – can hope to explain what the ‘action’ was that created the ‘equal and opposite reaction’ we call matter”

    Aargh. Newton didn’t say that an action causes a reaction, but that there exists a pair of forces (called action-reaction) in every interaction. They occur simultaneously; it’s not a cause-effect scenario. Here is a place Boone could start, but unfortunately folks like him seem to be impervious to actual, you know, facts.

  6. Cheryl says: “Aargh.”

    That pretty much sums it up.