Creationist Wisdom — Example 84

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled True scientists keep God in mind, which appears in the Fort Collins Coloradoan. We looked up the writer; he seems to be a chiropractor.

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:

I am reminded of a story about a conversation between Darwin and God. Darwin said, “I have found a way to create life, man, and the entire universe without you, God.” God was impressed and anxious to see how he would do it, so God said, “Show me what you can do.” Darwin said all I have to do is mix some of this mud and slime together, strike it with an electric shock and lightning, cause a big bang, and presto! – life, the universe, and all it contains.” God said, “I am impressed, but you can’t use my mud, my lightning, my space and my time.”

That’s the oldest — and dumbest — creationist joke in the world, but the punchline is usually: “Get your own dirt!” The second-oldest creationist joke usually involves Darwin’s discovery that he’s ended up in hell. Creationists are funny folks. Let’s read on:

True science is the study of God’s creation! Both evolution and creation are products of religious thought and ideas. Creation from the Bible and evolution from secular humanism, a religion according to the U.S. Supreme Court, (Torcaso vs. Watkins, 1961), neither evolution nor creation can be classified as empirical science.

Not quite. Not even close. Torcaso v. Watkins held that a state law requiring office holders to have a belief in God was unconstitutional. Period. Here’s the opinion: TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). In footnote 11, which is irrelevant to the case’s holding, and which doesn’t mention evolution, Hugo Black said:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

What that might have to do with evolution is left to your imagination. We continue with today’s letter:

To be classified as an empirical science, it must be verifiable, observable, reproducible, irrefutable and unfalsifiable. Evolution and creation can neither pass this test. Therefore, both must be classified as religious theory. As theory, I much prefer to follow God’s description of how everything came into being than Darwin’s. God’s account has not changed in several thousand years, and Darwin’s is changing every day.

Aaaargh!! Here’s more:

In 1990, when the Hubble space telescope was launched, science said it was for the purpose of looking for “the beginning, when there was no time, no matter and even no space” (Time Magazine, March 26, 1990, page 54). I do not believe Hubble found what it was looking for in 20 years of observation.

Aaaargh!! Now you know that Time magazine is where a creationist chiropractor goes to get his science. Moving along:

God first created time, then space, and finally matter. “In the beginning, God created the heavens, and Earth.” (Gen. 1:1) Darwin and the secular humanist evolutionist have never been able to explain where time came from and how it started, how and when space appeared or how matter appeared out of nothing. After the secular humanist has explained these things, let him explain how life got started.

Great letter, huh? Another excerpt:

In my freshman biology class in college in 1950, we were told the universe began two billion years ago. Today science tells us it began 14 billion years ago. That would mean it was 12 billion years since I was in college.

It’s outrageous that we keep learning things. Well, some of us do. On with the letter:

We know by our daily newspaper and television that Mount St. Helens erupted on May 23, 1980. But today’s study of the radioisotopes of the ash from that mountain tell us that it has been 12½ million years since that eruption. Is it possible science could be making a mistake in their interpretation of time and age? If that is the method primarily used to determine age of geology and fossils, is it possible there could be some mistakes in calculations?

That’s way too crazy to spend much time on. It’s probably rebutted here. Another excerpt from the letter:

I am not of the opinion religion should be taught in public schools. But if the religious concept of evolution and secular humanism is taught and taught as scientific fact when it obviously is not fact, why should not an alternative concept also be taught and, allowing students to make up their own minds as to which concept to follow?

And now we come to the end:

More scientists are adopting the intelligent design concept without reference to God or the Bible but even this is forbidden by the secular humanist. What has happened to our “freedom of speech” guarantee?

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

Nice letter, with a wide range of nonsense. An excellent addition to our collection.

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 84

  1. The Colorodoan Chiropractor pleads

    …why should not an alternative concept also be taught and, allowing students to make up their own minds as to which concept to follow?

    Yeah, science is too hard, all that empirical data gathering. Let’s just make science a matter of personal opinions of choice…

  2. The most hilarious thing about this is he gives what a scientific theory should be, “verifiable, observable, reproducible, irrefutable and unfalsifiable” and then proceeds to say he prefers his bronze age myths which violate all those principles he’s described. Cognitive Dissonance anyone?

  3. It was nice to see Gary Hurd helping out in the comments. Gary is one of the old-time TO regulars.

  4. RBH, I can’t see the comments. It’s either their website or my browser (Firefox) but they just don’t show up.

  5. SC,

    I’m also using Firefox and have no problems seeing the comments. Are you using any special plugins, such as “NoScript” or “Adblock Plus”?

  6. Gary, yeah, Adblock. I won’t give it up just to read comments at that site.

  7. Since I’m almost as ancient as
    your curmudgeonized chiropractor, I’d amend his 2 billion to 20 billion years, my recollection of the age of the universe that was floating around in the 50’s. His memory may have an x10 hole in it. I also admire his antipopperian stance: His view of the definitive scientific theory must be “irrefutable and unfalsifiable.” Take that, Popper!

    It is nice to see Gary Hurd and RBH commenting here. It raises the tone of this blog considerably.

  8. Bob Carroll says: “It is nice to see Gary Hurd and RBH commenting here. It raises the tone of this blog considerably.”

    RBH is indeed a welcome presence, but I suspect Gary Hurd was commenting at the newspaper site. As for the “tone of this blog,” hey — we got class! We always try to keep up appearances here.

  9. Gary, I went to the site using IE, and was able to see the comments.

  10. Unfortunately, neither Gary nor RBH spend much time at t.o. any more.

    Bob, what the heck is wrong with the tone of this blog?