Creationist Wisdom — Example 83: Protoplasm

WE present to you, dear reader, a spectacular letter-to-the-editor: Individual scientists, not science, conflict with God, which appears in the Rome News-Tribune of Rome, Georgia, population 34,980, the largest city in Northwest Georgia.

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

[T]here are various laws of nature that are undisputed by the scientific community. In Genesis 1:11,12,24,25 is a phrase that the scientific community cannot deny if they apply their own set of laws: “according to its kind.” It has to do with “protoplasm,” a complex substance regarded as the physical basis of life, and the living matter of all cells and tissue

Genesis is about protoplasm? Let’s read on:

In a biology paper, James Hutchins Sterling stated that “some protoplasm produces fat, others produce nerve substances, others brain substances, bone, muscle, each producing only its own kind and not interchangeable with the rest.”

James Hutchins Sterling? We’ve searched for him, but he’s left no trace we could find. We continue:

Each species of life has its own protoplasm. The protoplasm of one species cannot interchange with another species.

Okay. Tell that to this guy: First Human to Get Baboon Liver Is Said to Be Alert and Doing Well. Here’s more:

You can change the breed of a dog into an entirely new breed, but the species remains that of a dog. The King Ranch in Texas has produced many new breeds of cattle, but the species remains the same. They cannot change a Hereford bull into a Tennessee walking horse

It looks like the letter-writer is chanting the creationists’ “micro-yes, macro-no” mantra. Moving along:

The concept of the theory of evolution is based upon a one-celled organism. The evolutionists hold that it divided, and evolved through many stages, i.e. primate to modern man, or fish into amphibian, or bird into dinosaur. By science’s own accepted laws, the line of a species cannot be crossed, the protoplasm within the cells of each species produces only its own kind, they are neither interchangeable, nor can they be altered by any form of mutation.

This writer has done more than recite the “no macro evolution” dogma, he’s identified the mechanism — protoplasm! Not only that, he’s also invented and refuted the “bird into dinosaur” theory. Another excerpt:

T.H. Graebner, in “Evolution D an Investigation” wrote that “each seed feeds its own kind. The protoplasm of the gnat will no more grow into a fly than it will grow into an elephant. Protoplasm is protoplasm, yes, but man’s protoplasm is man’s protoplasm, and the mushroom’s is the mushroom.”

That’s probably a reference to this guy and his book: Evolution: An investigation and a criticism, by Th. Graebner (Amazon link). Graebner’s all-but-forgotten treasure was published in 1929.

And now we come to the end:

It is not science that is in conflict with God, it is the individual scientist. It is not geology that is in conflict with God, it is the individual geologist.

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

So there you are. Remember — preserve your purity of essence. Protoplasm is not interchangeable!

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 83: Protoplasm

  1. lewis thomason

    From reading the comments in the Rome paper, not every one in town is as confused as the letter writer.

  2. Right, lewis thomason. There were good comments to the article.

  3. The Curmudgeon noted

    James Hutchins Sterling? We’ve searched for him, but he’s left no trace we could find.

    Probably because the distinguished letter-writer of Rome misspelled the name: see James Hutchison Stirling (1820-1909).

    One would be unlikely to put his name forward in the pantheon of great thinkers…

  4. Good work, Great Claw! The man outlived Darwin by only 27 years. His “protoplasm theory” didn’t make much of a splash.

  5. retiredsciguy

    The letter-writer writes,
    “It is not science that is in conflict with God, it is the individual scientist. It is not geology that is in conflict with God, it is the individual geologist.”

    But it is creationism that is in conflict with reality, and the individual creationist letter-writer that is in conflict with logic.

  6. Yes sir, a double cheese burger with coke. Would you like protoplasm with that?

  7. Tundra Boy, you shame me! I had to reach for a trans-species organ transplant, when all I needed to do was mention that we eat other species.

  8. We should consider ourselves fortunate to live in these blessed times, when it is finally revealed to us the True Meaning of the Bible.

    To think that for thousands of years, Bible readers have been reading Genesis with no idea of what “according to its kind” really meant.

    But may I express some puzzlement as to why God was such a poor writer that He could not have made Himself clearer when writing the Bible?

  9. I really like this “theory” of protoplasm. LOL. Problem is, you can take the nucleus of one species and place it in the egg of another species (after removing the original nucleus), the egg now behaves as if it was a fertilized egg, and begins to develop. The product: an animal identical to the donor of the nucleus. This is the basis of cloning animals. One day we might be able to clone a mammoth using the egg of an elephant. We just need to find an intact nucleus in a well preserved frozen mammoth. So far this has not happened.

  10. TomS says: “But may I express some puzzlement as to why God was such a poor writer that He could not have made Himself clearer when writing the Bible?”

    Not God’s fault, it’s yours.