Creationist Wisdom — Example 66

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Evolution theory far from truth, which appears in the Montgomery Advertiser of Montgomery, Alabama (population 346,528 in 2000). “Our Vision: With boldness and courage, we provide vital information that enlightens and enriches everyone.”

We’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the excerpted paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:

At one time I did, as Pastor Evans currently does, kneel and worship at the altar of evolution. However the “theory of evolution” is so named because it is contrary to the basic tenet of the scientific method, namely being reproducible. This theory has never been and never will be replicable by scientific method.

We had to search around for it, but we think the letter-writer is responding to this: Letter sterling example, in which Pastor Evans discusses — and actually praises — the Clergy Letter Project. We can imagine how that might upset some folks in Montgomery.

Regarding the letter-writer’s announcement of the “basic tenet of the scientific method, namely being reproducible,” well … okay, if he says so. Let’s forget all that we know about ice ages, supernovae, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. The Big Bang too. What’s left to science after we apply the letter-writer’s “basic tenet” — your kid’s chemistry set? What you’re seeing here is creationism’s crazed claim that the past is unknowable, except through scripture. See: Creationism and Science.

Let’s read some more of today’s letter:

Daily more credible scientific minds are bringing forth critical issues with Darwin’s theory of evolution and producing evidences where Intelligent Design must be considered by necessity.

Yes, we’re very much aware of all the “critical issues” that continue to ooze forth from creationist websites. We continue:

Due to this, the letter’s statement [he means the Clergy Letter’s statement] that “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” is inaccurate. Critical issues with radiocarbon 14 dating still exist. Dating of materials recovered from the Mt. Saint Helen’s volcano in the 1980s return carbon dating of thousands of years. A small problem, one might say, since we know the event occurred approximately 30 years ago. The field of genetics also wreaks havoc with this theory.

Ah yes … Mt. St. Helens. Sorry, letter-writer, but that’s one of zillions of creationist clunkers debunked at Talk.Origins’ Index to Creationist Claims. Specifically, see: Claim CD013.1.

As for the wild assertion that genetics “wreaks havoc” with Darwin’s theory, the letter-writer cites no evidence for that, nor can he, so we’ll just skip it and give you some more from his letter:

Issues such as irreducible complexity can never be explained through evolution. This is where, if a single critical element is removed from the item in question, then the item no longer functions. Blood clotting is one example.

Another Michael Behe fan. We’ve discussed Behe’s well-debunked claims before, so won’t waste time on them here. Moving along:

Darwin’s own critical analysis of the Cambrian explosion is still unexplained 150 years later. No, the theory of evolution is far from the truth.

Invoking our new principle of “Stultissimus!” [the stupidest!], which is being used for the first time here, we’ll also skip over any argument that tries to use Darwin as an authority for criticizing Darwin. And now we come to the end:

On a more critical note, if Pastor Evans is willing to eliminate the first 11 chapters of Genesis as fact, what basis does he use to justify salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ as factual?

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

If the letter-writer’s world depends on the scientific accuracy of the six-day creation account in Genesis, then he’s got problems. He’s worldless, and that might be the worst problem of all.

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 66

  1. “On a more critical note, if Pastor Evans is willing to eliminate the first 11 chapters of Genesis as fact, what basis does he use to justify salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ as factual?”

    At least the letter writer got one thing right…

    But I digress. So genetics “wreaks havoc” on evolution. HAAAhaaahahahahaaa!

    Stultissimus, indeed!

  2. A couple more useful terms and phrases:

    Stultorum infinitus est numerus.

    Infinite is the number of fools. (Ecc. 1:15)

    http://www.latin-dictionary.org/JM-Latin-English-Dictionary/Stultorum_infinitus_est_numerus

    stultiloquium

    silly/foolish/stupid talk; babbling

    http://www.latin-dictionary.org/JM-Latin-English-Dictionary/stultiloquium

  3. Stultiloquium … I like it!

  4. Give the guy a break! As you note, he’s a Behe fan, and thus undoubtedly agrees with Behe regarding the ~4 billion year history of life, common descent, that reading the Bible as a science text is silly, and that the unnamed designer might be deceased.

    Besides, he’s got “evidences.” 😉

  5. Frank J says: “Give the guy a break! As you note, he’s a Behe fan …”

    We both know that Behe’s fans are a cherry-picking bunch. They’ll quote Behe only when it’s convenient, and they’ll ignore his old-earth peculiarities. Behe himself, if hauled before a creationist inquisition, would renounce his old-earth views. He’d say that it was a guise he adopted to keep from being “expelled” from academia.

  6. Cunmudgeon,
    Just so you know, our theories about surpernovae, earthquakes, volcanos, and evolution are indeed well supported by reproducibility. It is a very powerful tool in science. Where the letter-writer has gone wrong in thinking “reproducibility” requires a new, controlled lab experiment. That’s the ideal, but it isn’t necessary. Want to know if your theory about volcano operation is valid? See if it predicts the behavior of several other volcanos. The exact details may not be the same, and this may cause some troubles, but the data is useful. You can also see if your theory predicts the behavior of several historical eruptions. Again, not ideal but still useful.

    Nature often reproduces its mechanisms albeit not in the controlled fasion we’d like. This creationist either doesn’t understand what scientists mean by reproducibility or, more likely, is using the standard creationist tactic of equating imperfect scientific understanding with no understanding at all.

  7. eric, regarding any past event, we can repeatedly examine the evidence, and we can make repeated observations of future events that we predict, but the past event — evolution, age of the earth, past ice ages, etc. — cannot be “repeated” in the sense that the creationist requires. This is their justification for claiming that because we can’t repeat the past, we can’t really know anything about the past.

  8. Curmdgeon wrote: “Behe himself, if hauled before a creationist inquisition, would renounce his old-earth views.”

    Would YECs renounce their round Earth, heliocentric views too?

  9. comradebillyboy

    where, pray tell, is the alter of evolution?

  10. comradebillyboy:

    “where, pray tell, is the alter of evolution?”

    Last I looked it was in Curmy’s sanctum santorum.*

    * In his basement, under his sleeping bags and Ak47 replica. Right next to the Playboy mags.

  11. the past event — evolution, age of the earth, past ice ages, etc. — cannot be “repeated” in the sense that the creationist requires.

    Evolution repeats every time a species goes extinct, and other species in the same ecology adapt over generations to fill the hole. Natural selection repeats every time a cheetah catches a slow gazelle.

    But, if a creationist insists on a “laboratory controlled” example of evolution, you can always point them to this.

  12. techreseller

    To the creationist’s that post on this site. You might come across as more intelligent if you could spell 6 letter or less words correctly. You would think a properly churched boy could spell altar. Alter means to change. Meaning you probably miss the delicious irony of a creationist typing the “alter of evolution”. Get it……..