Creationist Wisdom — Example 75

THIS is number seventy-five in our little series. Your Curmudgeon is starting to realize that we’ll never exhaust the variety of creationist letters-to-the-editor. Our latest example, dear reader, is Changes in scientific theory indicate that Darwin was wrong, creationists are right, which appears in the Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

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

Regarding the story “Evolution’s foundation is shifting: Ethiopian skeletons push timeline back” (Oct. 2): The article raises a very serious question about who is going to repair the damage done by Charles Robert Darwin (1809-82), who originated that theory of evolution that now shows to be nothing more than hyperbole.

Right. News of the Ardi fossil shows that Darwin’s theory is “nothing more than hyperbole.” Let’s read on:

In a nation founded on the principle of “one nation under God,” an enormous amount of damage has been inflicted on that core fabric this nation runs on, our families.

That’s the founding principle? We thought it was a phrase inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance during the Eisenhower administration. Hey, Wikipedia even has a note on it: Addition of the words “under God”.

If it weren’t clear from the first, it’s now undeniably evident that today’s letter is … well, not entirely authoritative. We continue:

The teachers from elementary school up through high school and the professors in the colleges and universities have all been channelized by this Darwin theory of no creator, that the origin was by a big bang and that has since evolved to the form as we know it now, with special emphasis placed on man’s evolution from monkey or ape. This is the second such finding in one year that the theories were wrong. The first was the finding that our solar system is not as scientists had (for years) stated it was.

It’s not nice to laugh at people like the letter-writer. But we’re wondering — what’s this “channelizing” stuff about? Here’s more:

The question would be, what does channelization mean? The answer is simply that those of the higher education are most knowledgeable about all things. When a person like Darwin makes a statement such as evolution theories, the statements are taken as fact, and when it comes to the teaching levels the professors have been taught the theory, accepted it and then channelize the soon-to-be teacher and the teacher then channelizes the students they teach. The fact that all of the teachers have been channelized makes it a stronger statement because the student is hearing the same thing from all teachers. True or not, it is ingrained.

Got it. “Channelizing” is some kind of mind-control or indoctrination that the letter-writer thinks goes on in science class. It sounds really creepy. Thank God we have Sunday schools where clear thinking is encouraged. Moving along:

The result is a barren soul of the student, unable and unwilling to accept the facts that there was and is a creator, capable of making all the intricate facets of man, animal or plant life that these same teachers and professors cannot figure out.

O ye of barren soul — it’s not too late to change your ways! Another excerpt:

But it is not just there; it goes all the way up into government, federal, state and local. They want to hold on to the theories of no discipline of children at home or at school, stating it inhibits their interest in exploration. This is also wrong because lack of discipline in the first and second impression stages of childhood psychology creates contempt for rules and law.

Perhaps that has something to do with Darwin and the big bang and “one nation under God.” We’ll need to think about all of this. On with the letter:

Additionally, they want God out of everything, including the Constitution this nation and its states were founded on.

God’s in the Constitution? Who knew? And now we come to the end:

At what point do we get back to the real world and the principles this nation was built on?

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

Truly, a voice in the wilderness.

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 75

  1. comradebillyboy

    I must have missed something; I didn’t see any discussion of the changes in ‘scientific’ theory that refute evolution and support creationism. I did, however, see much evidence of a profound ignorance of history as well as science.

  2. comradebillyboy says: “I must have missed something …”

    We also missed the latest discovery that changed our understanding of the solar system. It’s so hard to keep up.

  3. My brain hurts…

  4. “At what point do we get back to the real world…?”

    Maybe when people like him come join us?

  5. I get the impression that his idea of discipline for children would include a cane or, at least, a ruler for rapping knucles. That would channelize them correctly, huh?

  6. Great Claw says: “My brain hurts…”

    That’s because you’re unaccustomed to thinking Great Thoughts.

  7. The latest discovery that changed our understanding of the solar system?

    I’d guess that the writer must be thinking of the demotion of Pluto to the status of dwarf planet.

    Or maybe it’s the discovery of another ring for Saturn?

    Those scientists keep changing their minds about everything and it’s so difficult to keep up.

  8. TomS says: “The latest discovery that changed our understanding of the solar system?”

    I suspect that Uranus is involved. It usually is.

  9. retiredsciguy

    “…that the origin was by a big bang and that has since evolved to the form as we know it now, with special emphasis placed on man’s evolution from monkey or ape. ”

    Big Bang? What did Darwin ever say about the origins of the universe?

    Maybe the creationists should start going after George Gamow, and leave poor old Charlie D. alone.

  10. Gabriel Hanna

    I suspect that Uranus is involved. It usually is.

    It’s a stupid joke, and to end it once and for all they will change the planet’s name to Urectum.

  11. TomS, since you’re one of the few who help me out with this, you probably are also anxiously awaiting the DI to comment on whether this “discovery” makes creationism right. And if so, which of the mutually contradictory versions does it not make right.

  12. Curmudgeon: “Hey, Wikipedia even has a note on it: Addition of the words ‘under God’.”

    You paleocons need to get with this new postmodern world. YEC and OEC are both correct, and Eisenhower drank beer with the Founding Fathers. It’s fun when you get the hang of it.