Creationist Wisdom — Example 31

ONCE MORE, dear reader, we present you with some gems from the wonderful world of creationism. Today’s offering is titled How do you find something that doesn’t exist? An intriguing title, isn’t it? It’s a letter-to-the-editor that appears in the Cumberland Times-News of Maryland.

Following recent custom, your Curmudgeon will politely insert this subtle signal [Aaaargh!!] after each howler so that we don’t interrupt the letter-writer’s learned discourse. We’ll also be adding Curmudgeonly commentary in between the letter-writer’s paragraphs.

We usually copy the entire letter, but this one is so long that we’ll only give you some choice excerpts. Also, we’re going to depart from our practice of omitting the name of the author, because in this case he makes himself quite public. The letter is signed “Charles E. Pariseau, D.C.C.” We Googled for the author’s name and found that he has a website: Charles E. Pariseau, DCC. That DCC means Doctor of Christian Counseling.

We have to warn you in advance that what makes Pariseau’s letter memorable is that it contains of some of the most hoary creationist clichés in existence. Okay, with bold added by us, here we go:

How does one use experimental and observational testing with the theory of evolution? How can we use repeatable methods to prove an element of evolution? [Aaaargh!!] How can we pin the ears back on a “missing link” that does not exist?

That’s a true classic. It amounts to saying that we can’t know anything about the past because we can’t reproduce it. So no one can ever know what formed the Hawaiian Islands or the Grand Canyon, no one can ever know about past ice ages, or even the cause of ancient meteor craters. Astronomers don’t know the cause of what they call supernovae, because no one can blow up a star in the lab. And most definitely, detectives can never solve crimes they didn’t witness. Let’s read on:

The empirical evidence and logical reasoning used in evolutionary theory is simply observation blended with human reasoning which cannot be objectively tested. (Please spare me the Carbon-14 argument which, since the nuclear testing in mid 20th century, has more holes than Swiss cheese!) [Aaaargh!!]

Right. No comment. We continue:

Think about that with the theory of electricity. We throw the light switch, turn on a TV or computer and hey, it works. The theory is repeatable. [Aaaargh!!]

Try that with evolution. And with many truly scientific theories involving things from electricity to quantum mechanics, we know they work and most of the “why” questions are indeed answered. This is not so with evolution.

Same argument as before. We don’t really know about evolution, because we can’t repeat the entire terrestrial biosphere in a lab. Here’s more:

I have to confess here that, as a Christian, I indeed ascribe to the Creator being just that: The Creator. Intelligent Design somehow just makes more logical sense to me as a person. [Aaaargh!!]

Entirely irrelevant. Moving along:

It takes a lot more faith and lack of reasoning to believe evolutionary science when compared to that of a Creator designing and structuring the ecosystem and the symbiotic relationships that surround us. [Aaaargh!!]

That’s one of the creationist classics we warned you about. Essentially the claim is: “It takes a lot more faith to do rational science than to do faith-based theology.” There is nothing a creationist can say that is more revealing of his absolute ignorance of the difference between science and religion.

And now we come to the end of the letter, and another all-time creationist classic:

Lastly, evolutionary science is wont to tell us from where matter originated. [Aaaargh!!] It’s somewhat like the story of God speaking to the evolutionary scientist. The bantering goes back and forth for a time as the scientist retorts by cloning fish, sheep, plants, until they work backward to planting a cloned seed. As the scientist begins to plant the seed, God stops him and says “Hey, make your own dirt!” [Aaaargh!!]

Funny, huh? “Make your own dirt!” That’s a humdinger, a real thigh-slapper. The only funnier line in the creationists’ limited repertoire is probably this: “An evolutionist dies and ends up in the lake of fire!” Har-de-har-har!

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

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 31

  1. Wow. That’s for your critique! I must have really struck a nerve! I did receive a couple of scathing e-mails and I’m not at all ashamed or embarrased! My faith is what it is and you are certainly entitled to your discourse too and opinion! I don’t pretend to “know it all” but simply to appeal to logic rather than the popular course of reasoning which appears to me to be so illogical and ill-conceived. Have a nice day!

  2. Charles E. Pariseau, good of you to drop in. Stick around and read a bit. You might find it interesting.

  3. Woody Emanuel

    I took the opportunity to e-mail Charles Pariseau, provide him with many links about evolution, and remind him that “God” would not be too happy about him preaching ignorance and falsehoods to his congregation.

    I think he will agree that it’s only logical and ethical to teach the truth.

  4. Woody Emanuel says:

    I took the opportunity to … remind him that “God” would not be too happy about him preaching ignorance and falsehoods to his congregation.

    We handle these things differently. It’s not my style to tell him how to conduct his religious activities. I don’t know enough about his work to critique him. But that ought to work both ways. Folks should be aware of their limitations when tempted to instruct scientists how science should be done.

  5. My simple question to Charles Pariseau is this:

    There are about SEVENTEEN MILLION individual peer-reviewed scientific papers indexed at the National Library of Medicine’s online database. Empirical evidence for evolution is presented in hundreds of thousands of papers; not a single paper refutes evolution, and not a single paper provides data in support of “alternatives” like intelligent design or traditional creationism. What is the reason for this?

    1. ID/Creationism is based on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation, and thus is not science
    2. There is a vast global conspiracy that has prevented even a single piece of data supporting ID/Creationism from being published in peer-reviewed scientific literature
    3. ID/Creationism proponents are utterly incompetent at performing scientific research

    In other words, please consider that you’re calling scientists like me liars and frauds when you make the sort of arguments presented in your letter.

  6. Carolinaguitarman

    Pariseau’s “arguments” are so bad they aren’t even wrong.
    Those are brain cells I’ll never be able to use again. Thanks a lot!

  7. Um. He’s YEC. That means that his issue isn’t with the Theory of Evolution, it’s with reality;
    “There are two points here worth noting. First, scientifically, using a term like “very
    approximately” speaks to the inaccuracies of the theory. Simply looking at the Bible and
    Genesis, the timeline is firm and affirmative. There is no question.” ~ (from the link)

    Being exact and wrong is okay if God wrote the book, but being tentative and close (but never perfect) is bad if Man did.
    —-
    Charles E. Pariseau: pick up copies of:
    *Your Inner Fish
    *Making of the Fittest
    *Endless Forms Most Beautiful &
    *Watchmen
    At the very least, these will help you know what you’re arguing against (except Watchmen. It’s not biology. It’s just awesome).