Creationist Discovers the Missing Link!

THERE’s no way to prepare you for this one, dear reader. It’s a column of sorts in the Alvin Sun-Advertiser of Alvin, Texas. The author is W. Edward Murphy. We’ve written about his work before, but when we did so we omitted Murphy’s name because we thought he had merely written a letter-to-the-editor. See: Creationist Wisdom — Example 47 (Amazing!)

It now appears that he’s some kind of regular at the Alvin Sun-Advertiser, so we’re using his name. He deserves the recognition. Murphy’s latest article is titled Eureka-The Missing Link! Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Charles Darwin and his many advocates claim that man was not created, but evolved from lower life forms (How does that concept make sense to scientists, let alone be considered science?). However, assuming the evolutionary process did tatke [sic] over millions or billions of years, why is no mention made of an accompanying female, an entity decidedly necessary for procreation to take place?

Stunning, isn’t it? It’s so obvious when one thinks about it. How could we have been so blind? Let’s read on:

Evolutionary enthusiasts are prone to debunk God’s description of how man came to be on planet earth – debunk it as little more than a fable. Their “scientists” have been looking for, and always will be looking for the “missing link” between ape and man.

Their search will never be productive: There is no missing link between ape and man – it cannot exist. The real missing link in all of the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution regarding the origin of man is the female of the species.

Although we’re still trembling at the power of Murphy’s revelation, we must gather our wits and continue:

I’ve been listening to Darwinian drivel for 70 years, and don’t remember reading about or hearing any mention of the female of the species.

At the least you would think they’d explain how a male and female could have evolved almost at the same time in order to reproduce. Or do they believe that the male-female union was unnecessary up to some indeterminate time?

Murphy unrelentingly drives his message home again and again. Having our decades-long ignorance exposed like this is too painful for your Curmudgeon to endure. Therefore we’ll give you only one more excerpt — Murphy’s announcement of the missing link:

By creating man, and woman from man, God provided the ability for man to have offspring, to populate the earth.

The first woman, Eve, is the “missing link” which has been long sought, unsuccessfully, by Darwinian evolutionists. With her, Adam was able to have sons and daughters. She is a real person, with genealogical evidence in the form of descendants (every one named) from Adam and Eve to Jesus the Christ.

Well, there it is. This changes everything. Our prior writings are no longer operative.

Update: For yet another Murphy article, see: Traditional Americans, Texas Style.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Creationist Discovers the Missing Link!

  1. I think I’ll turn in my Ph.D. now. The problem is solved. There’s nothing else for me to do. (Wink, Wink).

  2. Biokid says: “I think I’ll turn in my Ph.D. now.”

    It is disheartening. All my life I’ve sought the missing link. When I look back on the wasted years, all I can think is what a fool I’ve been!

  3. carlsonjok

    Wait. I thought Eve was a spare rib?

  4. Jesus the Christ

    Well, that’s news to me!

    All my life I thought it was “Jesus H. Christ”

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    A human being (irrespective of sex or age).

    Man was considered until the 20th cent. to include women by implication, though referring primarily to males. It is now freq. understood to exclude women, and is therefore avoided by many people. In some of the quotations in this section, it is difficult or impossible to tell whether man is intended to mean ‘person’ or ‘male human being’.

    English has a special word for females (woman) but not for males (man refers to males and people in general).

    Clearly this guy hasn’t read anything about evolution that was written after about 1950.

    Women’s studies professors are making the same mistake though, when they say that the impersonal pronoun “he” is sexist. Might as well say that a German is sexist for calling a group of people “she”.

  6. Gabriel Hanna

    @Doc Bill: What is the “H” suppose to stand for? I suppose I thought it stood for Hergensheimer, which presumably would have been Mary’s maiden name, but I never knew who to ask.

  7. The day that creationism goes the way of geocentrism just can’t come soon enough.

  8. …why is no mention made of an accompanying female…

    I guess in Alvin, Tx, Lucy is a man’s name.

  9. Gabriel Hanna says: “I suppose I thought it stood for Hergensheimer …”

    Wikipedia has an entry on it: Jesus H. Christ.

  10. Bob Carroll

    Give that man a banana!

    “Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it…
    (Thanks, Eartha)


  11. Carl Sachs

    Actually, the “H” in “Jesus H. Christ” stands for “haploid.” Since Jesus only inherited chromosomes from his human mother, Mary — God, being immaterial, contributed no chromosomes — the resulting offspring was not diploid, like all other humans, but haploid.

    Aye, a little learning is a dangerous thing . . .

  12. every time I think they can not sink any lower , the creationists lower the standard.

    btw, would H be for Holy ?

  13. CS:
    If Jesus was haploid, (s)he would not have a Y chromosome, having gotten only an X chromosome from Mary. So Jesus was a haploid female. What better proof for God being female. Let the fundamentalists meditate on that.

  14. White Jesus with his soft blue eyes doesn’t look a little androgynous to you?

  15. Ps XO females have Turner syndrome:

  16. Gabriel Hanna

    When I was a kid, we had a song in our Sunday School book about how Jesus looks like to the children around the world who worshipped him. James Taylor covered it:

    Some children see Him lily white,
    The baby Jesus born this night.
    Some children see Him lily white,
    With tresses soft and fair.
    Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
    The Lord of heav’n to earth come down.
    Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
    With dark and heavy hair.

    Some children see Him almond-eyed,
    This Savior whom we kneel beside.
    Some children see Him almond-eyed,
    With skin of yellow hue.
    Some children see Him dark as they,
    Sweet Mary’s Son to whom we pray.
    Some children see him dark as they,
    And, ah! they love Him, too!

    The children in each different place
    Will see the baby Jesus’ face
    Like theirs, but bright with heavenly grace,
    And filled with holy light.
    O lay aside each earthly thing
    And with thy heart as offering,
    Come worship now the infant King.
    ‘Tis love that’s born tonight!

    I don’t get too annoyed by depictions of Jesus as white, anymore than I get annoyed by depictions of Biblical figures as fifteenth-century Italians.

  17. But, but, but…

  18. Benjamin Franklin

    I do believe that Texas has found the author for their new biology textbook.

  19. Evolutionary enthusiasts are prone to debunk God’s description…

    Except it isn’t “God’s description”, it’s “man’s description” (or male’s or female’s or… whatever). God did not write it; men did. They were allegedly “interpreting” the word of God. And somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that something got lost in translation.

  20. Goodness. How dumb can you get? Does he really think that all biologists and paleontologists really forgot entirely about females and “the birds and the bees?”

    Perhaps one day, creationists will realize that evolution is a gradual process and stop criticizing it for not poofing things into existences like their own “theory.”

  21. Goodness. How dumb can you get? Does he really think that all biologists and paleontologists really forgot entirely about females and “the birds and the bees?”

    That’s perhaps the single most annoying thing about creationists. They don’t read the scientific literature or even decent reviews of it, and assume there are huge problems with evolution that any non-scientist could figure out, the less training and education the better.

  22. I’ve been getting your blog via email now for a few weeks and YOU sir are a gem! Please keep up the good work.

    This post literally made me LOL; so much so I was compelled to respond to Goober’s article with a pithy little comment that will, no doubt, be nuked from existence.

    Thanks for making my day.


    P.S. The pic of Goobe… er, Mr. Murphy just could not be staged any better unless he was wearing a “God Hates Fags” t-shirt.

  23. Welcome aboard, Trent. I just checked the article, and I can’t see any comments there.