Creationist Wisdom — Example 37

TODAY’s example is a letter-to-the-editor inspired by the anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-creationist science education standards recently adopted by the Texas Board of Education, about which we’ve been reporting.

This letter appears in the Galveston County Daily News, titled: Evolution No Match For Intelligent Design.

So you can fully appreciate the letter-writer’s arguments, we’ll restrain ourselves from inserting our usual exclamations into his text. We’ll be adding Curmudgeonly commentary between paragraphs, however. The bold font was added by us:

It has been very disappointing to read in the paper about the decision made by the Texas Education Department on teaching the theory of evolution in schools without admitting its weaknesses.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has been disproved by science, yet it is held onto tightly by many people, and even scientists, because they refuse to believe the alternative: creation.

It’s been disproved? Perhaps we’re the last to learn of this. Let’s read on:

Many leading scientists believe in at least intelligent design. Stephen Hawking, along with Albert Einstein, Henry Morris, Melvin Morse, George Meek, Walter Brown and many other very intelligent people believe in and support supernatural creation.

That is a truly amazing collection of names! Einstein’s atheism — or rather, his disbelief in a personal, miracle-working deity — was well-known during his lifetime, yet he continues to be appropriated by those with whom he would disagree. Hawking is among the more than 1,000 “Steves” who signed the Project Steve statement, so it’s odd to see him included him in a pro-creationism list. As for the other names mentioned by the letter-writer, they don’t belong in the same paragraph with Einstein and Hawking, so we’ll dump them into one of their own:

We’ve written about Henry Morris before, calling him the Ultimate Creationist. We’ve never paid much attention to Walter Brown, but he’s a creation “scientist” who runs the Center for Scientific Creation. Melvin Morse runs this website, which seems to be about near-death experiences. And finally, we never heard of George Meek, but maybe it’s this guy, who was interested in contacting the spirits of dead people.

We continue:

As Brown brings out in his book “In the Beginning,” it is macroevolution, which required new abilities and increasing complexity, that is highly speculative and at the center of the creation/evolution controversy. Microevolution, on the other hand …

It’s not our usual practice to cut off a letter-writer in mid-sentence, but we’ve seen way too much of that particular line of argument. Our response is here: Micro Macro, Tutti Frutti.

More from today’s letter:

No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time or matter. Since each is intimately related to or even defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have completely failed.

What that has to do with the subject at hand is an even greater mystery. And now we come to the end of this letter:

The evidence for creation may be downloaded free at http://www.creationscience.com.

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

That reference is to Walter Brown’s Center for Scientific Creation. Go ahead and check out the evidence. You may find it persuasive.

So there you are. Today’s letter-writer is disappointed that Texas science education standards haven’t been made even more creationist than the Board of Education has currently made them. You can’t please everybody.

Copyright © 2009. 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

2 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 37

  1. Benjamin Franklin

    Though he certainly did not believe in a personal god, or the validity of organized religion, I would not go so far as to say that Einstein was an atheist.

    In fact, he said that he believed in “Spinoza’s god”, more of an order to the universe, evident in the natural world, that man is simply incapable of understanding.

    Anti creationist? Absolutely.

    Anti theist? Well evidenced.

    Atheist? Not really.

  2. Benjamin Franklin says: “I would not go so far as to say that Einstein was an atheist.”

    Yeah, it depends on the definition. Since I say that Darwin wasn’t an atheist (he never said there are no gods), by that same standard neither was Einstein an atheist.

    On reflection, I tweaked the original post. It now refers to “Einstein’s atheism — or rather, his disbelief in a personal, miracle-working deity –“