The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement

YOUR Curmudgeon has experienced an early morning flash of insight. This essay will be brief; and you should save it. A printout of these words, dated today, will undoubtedly be an historical memento of immense value.

We’ve devoted considerable efforts to documenting the functioning — if that’s the word — of the creationist brain, and in response to our examples of creationist wisdom, many of you remark that they can’t be real, they must be spoofs, there’s no way people can be that messed up, etc. Yet the avalanche of evidence continues, with no hint of an end, so the existence of creationist thinking must be accepted as a fact.

But a question emerges: How can a brain function in a creationist manner? Indeed, how can a creationist brain even exist? Surely, the defects that produce such a malfunctioning organ should have been filtered out of the gene pool long ago.

We can’t avoid the issue: The continued existence of creationists among us can be cited as evidence against natural selection. Therefore, we must boldly acknowledge the Paradox of Creationism: Creationism exists; and if evolution can’t account for it, then what does?

That’s when the answer hit us: We’ll use the methodology of the creationists to solve this problem! As the creationists — or as some of them prefer to be known, intelligent design (ID) theorists — are always reminding us:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Surely you see it now. If we follow their own thinking, the solution to the paradox is obvious: The brain of a creationist is so scrambled that it cannot be the result of natural processes. An unnatural agency must be responsible.

The Theory of Abominable Befuddlement (AB) holds that certain features of the creationist brain are best explained by an Abominable Befuddler, and not by evolution. It follows as a self-evident corollary that ID is caused by AB.

But as scientific thinkers, how can we have confidence in the theory of AB? Again, our inspiration comes from the same creationist source to which we linked above, which tells us:

Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.

Using this creationist-approved method of investigation, a befuddlement theorist studies the output of creationists, and thus is able to determine whether it is the rational product of an evolved brain, or an example of befuddlement.

We could continue, but there’s no need at this point. You see where we’re going with this. And you doubtless agree.

Verily, this is a glorious day! History reveals that it is a rare occasion when a genuine scientific breakthrough is made. Rarer still to have such an event occur within one’s lifetime. And rarest of all is to actually be the one who makes the breakthrough.

Yet I, your Curmudgeon, am such a one, and this is such an occasion. Time Cube, here we come!

Update: See Proof of the Theory of Abominable Befuddlement.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Stephen C. Meyer at the Heritage Foundation

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Evolutionists Adrift on the Origin of Information, which appears in the Dakota Voice. That organ’s about page informs us:

Dakota Voice is based in Rapid City, South Dakota and features contributors from around the country. Dakota Voice examines local, state, national and world issues of interest to conservatives and Christians. … While most news sites see events through a secular worldview, Dakota Voice strives to maintain a biblical, Christian worldview. …

– Bob Ellis, Owner

Ellis writes about something we’ve mentioned before. He says:

Center for Science and Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer kicked off his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design yesterday with a presentation at the Heritage Foundation (see video below).

So what we have here is a creationist’s report on Meyer’s presentation to the Heritage Foundation. We’ll give you some choice excerpts, with our Curmudgeonly commentary between Ellis’ paragraphs. You’ll have to click over to the Dakota Voice for any links that Ellis may have included in his text. The bold font was added by us for emphasis. Here we go:

As the accompanying article at the Discovery Institute points out, Dr. Meyer’s book exposes the fact that materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] have a really hard time explaining the origin of life. After all, everything in science tells us that it is impossible for life to spring from lifeless materials. Therefore, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] rely on an unscientific event at a pivotal point in their theory of origins, even as they demand that only scientifically verifiable information be considered.

Okay, if he says so. Let’s read on:

Whether you believe God created the universe (as I do), or merely believe “a” designer created the universe, intelligent design theory assumes a designer outside of and independent of the laws governing the universe.”

That’s quite an assumption. Where — if not in the universe — might that designer be lurking? We’re not informed. Anyway, we’ll continue with Ellis’ column:

Meanwhile, materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic], by the self-imposed parameters of their own theory, insist that no supernatural cause may be considered … yet their own theories concerning the origin of the universe are impossible (something cannot come from nothing — has it ever been observed in science?).

This is powerful stuff! Here’s more:

As you see, creation and intelligent design are logical and rational within the framework of their own theory, while materialism/naturalism/evolution [sic] are illogical, irrational and impossible within the framework of their own theory.

Ah. It’s all so clear! Moving along:

Materialists/naturalists/evolutionists [sic] insist that something which cannot be observed or tested according to scientific principles (i.e. God) cannot be considered in the world of science. Yet they expect us to believe in key points of their theory (something from nothing, life from lifelessness, information without intelligence) when these contentions have not been observed or verified in science?

So, as we understand Ellis’ position, evolution and creationism are both ridiculous — therefore we should go with creationism. Okay. Click over there to read it all, if you like. We’ve given you enough encouragement.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Governor Mark Sanford: Creationist

THIS is a big day for news about Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, but we’re not going to comment about his Argentine affair. Instead, your Curmudgeon will use this occasion to remind you of what we reported more than a year ago, in this post: McCain’s Possible VP Choices — Creationists?

This comes from the website of South Carolinians for Science Education. It’s a transcript of the governor’s statement on intelligent design, apparently from 29 January 2006: Two Mosquitoes in a Mudhole. That title is a phrase taken from Sanford’s remarks. The website introduces the transcript with this paragraph:

David Stanton interviewed Governor Mark Stanford on today’s Newswatch. Among questions on the economy and education, Stanton asked a question about Intelligent Design. The following is a transcript, typed as best as can, from the interview:

Okay, here it comes, with spelling and punctuation from the original:

David Stanton: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools — for instance intelligent design?

Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.

Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?

Sanford: Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of their being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being … is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.

Whether you think about you bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression … Uuummm … in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics … and so I would not have a problem in teaching both … Uh, you saying this is one theory and here’s another theory.

Whatever you may think of Governor Sanford’s South American escapade, we can probably all agree on this: We now have one less creationist to worry about in national politics.

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom — Example 50

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Evolution, creation both need to be taught in school, which appears in the Estacada News of Estacada, Oregon (population estimate 2,695 residents).

We’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, and add our Curmudgeonly commentary between the excerpted paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:

The year 2009 marks the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin, the naturalist and scholar whose 1859 book, “The Origin of Species,” set the stage for evolutionary theory.

Set the stage? Well, let’s read on:

Darwin’s writings, sadly, have steered many away from biblical faith, including people I have known. To me, Darwinism’s greatest tragedy is its attack on creation, of which the weekly Sabbath is a memorial for many Christians.

We’ve heard far worse accusations. The letter continues:

From the 1920s Scopes trial to conservative Ann Coulter’s defense of creation in her book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” Darwin remains a hot topic of debate in our current society.

Coulter’s book was every bit as brilliant as Bryan’s prosecution in Scopes. Here’s more:

What has Darwin accomplished? Well, generations of students have gone to public schools in this country and were steeped in evolution as the explanation for life’s origins. Instead of proposing both creation and evolution as possible theories, society’s march toward Darwinism as the answer has left millions with a flawed view of life’s true Creator.

The letter-writer doesn’t know that Darwin didn’t try to explain “life’s true Creator.” Nor does he know what a theory is. Yet he writes this letter. Well, that’s to be expected in these cases. Moving along:

If we are the result of chance, from where does morality come from, and where do we go after this life?

Wow! Darwin doesn’t explain the afterlife. No one ever pointed that out before. Here’s another excerpt:

The tragedy of turning away from God is mitigated by an amazing fact: God does not turn away from us. Redemption, reclamation and salvation all are available as we move toward the Father. In turn, he runs toward us with open arms, saying, in effect, “Welcome home.”

Okay. And now we come to the letter’s end:

Darwin is dead, and he can’t save anyone. Jesus, by whom the Bible says everyone was made, lives. God bless.

[Writer's name and city can be seen in the original.]

Darwin can’t save anyone? Jeepers!

Update: The paper has published a follow-up letter: Religion doesn’t belong in school. This new letter-writer proposes a brilliant solution: “[W]hy not teach the theory of Intelligent Design, without any religious preaching.”

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

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article