The World’s Greatest Unanswered Questions

This is going to make your weekend. It may even transform your whole life. Bringing this information to you today justifies your Curmudgeon’s entire blogging career. Brace yourself, dear reader. After reading this, things will never be the same again.

In the Frederick News-Post, a daily newspaper of Frederick County, Maryland, there’s a feature they call Area Religion News. That section has several entries about the activities of local churches, but there is one in particular that we want to discuss. It says:

Frederick Creation Society meeting slated:

Did Charles Darwin refute his own evolution theory? Tricia Auxt will lead a discussion on the topic at the Frederick Creation Society meeting set for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Frederick Adventist School, 6437 Jefferson Pike, Frederick. For more information, call 301-663-4508.

No doubt you’ve been wondering the same thing, dear reader. Well — what’s the answer? Did Darwin refute his own theory? Tricia knows, and there’s still time to make arrangements for attending the meeting. If you go, please give us a report.

Tricia’s topic about Darwin refuting Darwin brings to mind a few other questions of equal significance that we’ve been asking ourselves: Did Abe Lincoln blow his own brains out? Did the Wright Brothers ever get off the ground? Did Einstein believe in the Time Cube? And most importantly — did the Lindbergh baby have an operation in Denmark, change his name from Charles Jr. to Norma Jeane, and return to America to become Marilyn Monroe?

Along with Darwin refuting Darwin, these are the most important questions of all time. Only the greatest and most courageous minds dare to even ask them, and such minds are rare indeed.

Seeking more information, we went searching for the website of the Frederick Creation Society, and when we found it we encountered this stunning article: My Top 5 Reasons to Ditch Macroevolution. We won’t spoil the thrill of discovery by giving you any details — just the five reasons themselves. Here they are, starting with number five:

Reason #5 – Scientific American and Discover magazines endorse it.

Reason #4 – Lack of Intermediates

Reason #3 – Chemistry and Reversible Reactions

Reason #2 – Entropy and Order

You can’t wait to click over there to study these reasons in detail, can you? We won’t detain you much longer, but we can’t stop now. Here it comes, the number one reason to ditch macroevolution:

Reason #1 – Molecules do not write messages

Okay, dear reader. We’ve brought you to the source. The rest is up to you. Go now, and learn what your teachers never told you.

Copyright © 2011. 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

14 responses to “The World’s Greatest Unanswered Questions

  1. “Darwin himself refuted evolution on his deathbed!” is a sentence I’ve encountered from creationists before. Always with a straight face, and without a trace of irony – or evidence, naturally. On the credulity scale, I put it right up there with “9/11 was a U.S. government inside job”, “Ronald Reagan created the AIDS virus”, and all the various Elvis is alive/UFO cover-up conspiracy theories.

    Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it,” which was perhaps his only truthful statement ever. What this says about us as a species, I won’t venture to guess. Except to point out the inevitable irony that it validates Darwin’s theory of evolution like gangbusters.

  2. magpie61 says:

    “Darwin himself refuted evolution on his deathbed!” is a sentence I’ve encountered from creationists before.

    And what if that really happened — so what? What if Newton rejected gravity on his deathbed? Remind them that Galileo actually did renounce the solar system.

  3. Frederick (aka “Fred-neck”) is about an hour west of where I am. I’ll see if I can slip it into the schedule. This next week is going to be busy, work-wise, so we’ll see.

  4. “Reason #1 – Molecules do not write messages”. Obviously he’s taken the analogy of codes and messages that is widely used to describe various chemical reactions in the cell and turned it upside down – the analogy is no longer a convenient way of understanding and is now the actual reality, and since mindless molecules don’t create codes or messages… evolution is wrong! It can’t possibly be that chemical reactions following all the rules of chemistry happen to produce results that can be conveniently described as transmitting messages…

    The lack of intermediates reason is also quite humorous. Instead of being intermediates, animals like archaeopteryx are mosaics, like creatures built from a parts bin. Maybe the designer had left-over pieces, and just cobbled together goofy animals for a bit of fun. Monotremes don’t have characteristics of very early mammals, nooooo, they are just jokes by the designer. Yup, that’s a much better hypothesis.

    The sad thing is, though, that people believe this crap.

  5. Same ol’, same ol’…

  6. longshadow

    In related news:

    Superball™ recants on deathbed — “bouncing is impossible!”

  7. Chicken recants on deathbead:

    “I do taste like chicken.”

  8. “Did Charles Darwin refute his own evolution theory?” I think this reflects how the thinking goes among the wider population of Creationists: A wicked man named Charles Darwin made up a bunch of stuff (a “theory”). Never mind a century and a half of science since then — this gives them a villain, an identifiable man with a name, to blame it all on. In their world, it’s the common thing for somebody to have an allegedly divine inspiration (or an epileptic fit, or a bright idea for a money-making scheme), and immediately proceed to hang out a shingle as the leader of a new cult and take donations. The cult stands or falls on the words of its founder, since divine inspirations always seem to occur to only person at a time, never the same way twice, and can never be independently verified. Our friends assume “Darwinism” works the same way since that’s their experience. All religions are of course “false” except for the one you support, so Darwinism is just one more false religion subject to attack by merely discrediting the founder. The idea that Darwin might have been an honest researcher attempting to describe a very complex reality doesn’t occur to the naive sort being addressed here. More sophisticated Creationists will attempt to be a little more reasonable with civil-sounding bafflegab about “the same evidence, different assumptions” (scientists are mostly honest but led astray by ideological blinders not allowing for supernatural intervention) but down on this level it’s all a crude conspiracy theory with wicked villains to hiss and boo.

  9. Wow, what a site. I don’t think I’ll be visiting twice, though. I enthusiastically read the summary of the 2011 lecture on how exo-planets prove creation. The author likes astronomy but doesn’t understand how the scientific method works. Bonus, there were brightly-colored pictures, and I like those, plus looking at them is easier than reading. A little more cautiously, I approached the detailed refutation of the “Da Vinci Code” by someone who’s apparently an apologetics leader at a local church. That was harder to follow, especially because I’d had the impression Dan Brown wrote fiction — but never mind. My stamina failed, though, when I got to the article where a former dental missionary cites our ability to enjoy chewing our food as evidence of ID.

    SC, total props for being able to wade through and digest this stuff day after day. You’ve got something I don’t.

  10. On the “Articles” page of the Frederick Creation Society’s web site, there are several hyperlinks given as “ww.” instead of “www.”, including one that is supposed to go back to their own home page. In other words, they have several missing links on their own web site.

  11. @Deklane–you hit the nail on the head.

    @TheBicyclingGuitarist–too funny.

  12. Reason #2 – Entropy and Order

    Henry Morris (Old Henry) made this the main plank of his argument. Indeed he stated that it was creationists’ strongest case.

    The difficulty is that Old Henry does not know much about thermodynamics, but fortunately, most people know even less. In fact, most arguments in opposition are made by people who know just enough to see that something is wrong but, because they rely on creationist sources to make up the lacunae, their arguments are also nonsense. Old Henry, not having the wit to see that he is arguing with an ignoramus, charges into a rebuttal based on yet more spurious ‘facts’.

    This brings us to this rather sad piece from Bob Cooperman. Old Henry was wrong – it is possible to take his argument to pieces and correct the errors. Bob Cooperman is far beyond being wrong – somewhere, behind it, must be the words of the master but he clearly does not even understand that. Instead, he adds the most amazingly bad exposition of thermodynamics that I have ever heard (even from a creationist) it is pure fantasy.

    Not knowing much about biology, I am not prepared to argue with someone who waves his hands and blinds me with science – it always seems to be so complicated. But when someone comes along and waves his hands and tries to blind me with science over a simple thing like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I see right through it – especially when it is obvious that they do not understand the subject themselves. They compound the felony when they claim to have three degrees from the Bob Hope University or whatever.

    The irony is that creationism is not dependent on belief in the creationist version of the 2nd Law. Yet they are prepared to hazard all on this argument.

    If this is creationism’s best argument – what is their second best?

  13. UPDATE: I didn’t make it to the meeting. Maybe next time.

  14. I don’t think you missed anything.