Creationist Wisdom #311: The Ol’ Ranger

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Payson Roundup of Payson, Arizona. The letter’s title is Editor’s Note To Greer Disappointing. The title isn’t very promising, but you’ll soon see what it’s about. Here are a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do, we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

I was disappointed in your perceived need to respond to Pete Greer’s letter to the editor on creationism.

He’s talking about this: Creationism And Evolution. It’s a creationist’s letter to which the newspaper’s editor added a comment about the “overwhelming evidence of evolution.” That comment is what triggered today’s letter, with which we now continue:

I am a professional biologist and was taught throughout my academic and professional career about the “THEORY” of evolution. And much like your response to Mr. Greer’s editorial, the creation theory was ridiculed and dismissed as religious folly.

The capitalization and the scare-quotes are in the original. The letter-writer says he’s a professional biologist. We Googled and found someone in Payson, Arizona with the letter-writer’s name. That fellow now owns some kind of clothing business, but previously he was “Chief Law Enforcement Ranger for Arizona at US Bureau of Land Management.” Is that our man? Could be. Let’s read on:

Over the years, I began to question evolution, as I could find no evidence, using the Scientific Method for evolution (unlike your baseless comment on evolution as fact).

The ol’ Ranger gave evolution a fair chance. He searched, but he found no evidence. The letter continues:

Currently there is a movement among the scientific community for the theory of “Intelligent Design” — scientists’ name for creationism as they don’t want to recognize God’s involvement.

That’s a fair description of ID. It’s a “movement” of some kind, but not a scientific movement. Here’s how the letter ends:

Finally for those who cling to the evolution theory, or the big-bang theory, I ask one question: “Where did the stuff or ooze or whatever you wish to call it, that originally started the whole thing, come from? I might suggest you start reading in Genesis 1:1 for your answer.

The editor doesn’t seem to be intimidated. He also added a note to the end of the Ranger’s letter.

Copyright © 2013. 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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #311: The Ol’ Ranger

  1. Good detective work on the letter writer. He worked for the BLM, so he’s a “professional biologist.”

    If science degrees don’t matter, why do creationists keep faking them?

  2. Exactly why do newspapers print letters from nuts such as creationists, the anti-vaccination crowd, 9/11 conspiracy freaks, et al?

  3. The fellow that wrote the original post replies “What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious?”. What indeed does a creationist need to do? From the examples I’ve seen that answer would be to misrepresent the truth and invoke mysticism at every opportunity. Quite a funny question coming from a creationist really.

    Cheers

  4. At least this letter has a proper editor.

  5. er, I meant newspaper….

  6. Have you seen the comment to the letter by someone who denies the science of cosmology, astronomy, physics, radiometric dating, geology, taphonomy, biology and … for good measure … the kind of archeology that Christians often cite as evidence for the truth of the Bible and then asks:

    What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious?

    Duh!

  7. johnpieret says: “What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious?”

    What does Dennis Kucinich have to do to be considered James Bond?

  8. @The Curmudgeon
    “What does Dennis Kucinich have to do to be considered James Bond?”

    Well, he needs a few gadgets for a start and I don’t think the bible will help him there. My late dad was a prominent scientist and a christian too, but didn’t abide by this YEC nonsense.

    We have our wackos here underside, but they don’t get the amount of press that you get topside.

  9. I am a professional biologist and was taught throughout my academic and professional career about the “THEORY” of evolution.

    Aaaaand with that one sentence, he completely destroys any shred of credibility he might have had.

    Then, of course, this letter writer is responding to a perceived attacked on the original letter defending creationism. The commenter for this letter is actually the writer for the first one. Will there be a third letter attacking this attack on the first attack? Stay tuned!

  10. techreseller

    Dennis does qualify at one and to the best of my knowledge, at only one point to be James Bond. He has a gorgeous wife, so he goes hang out with good looking sexy women. While he has a long way to go, he started at the right point. More than you can say for ID’ers and creationists.