Creationist Wisdom #91: God or the Abyss

BRACE yourself. We’ve found an amazing item titled The choice is simple enough: It’s either God or the abyss. It appears in the Mansfield News Journal, a daily newspaper in Mansfield, Ohio.

We can’t tell if this is a letter-to-the-editor or maybe a piece written by one of the News Journal‘s columnists. There’s a picture at the link, showing what appears to be the author. We’ll leave it up to you to decide if he’s drooling.

This … this thing is so incredibly embarrassing that we won’t give the author’s name. He’s described as being age 65, of rural Bellville, and he “has been in the insurance and investment business for 30 years.” We’ll copy only some of this letter — or column, or whatever it is — adding bold for emphasis and Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs.

The article by this rural insurance salesman is nominally about Dr. Tim Berra, Professor Emeritus of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology at Ohio State University. Berra has recently donated his collection of rare mammals and aquatic specimens to the Smithsonian Institute. That news is the pretext for one of the most ignorant and malignant rants against the theory of evolution we’ve yet seen.

We are told that Berra wrote: “The theory of evolution is arguably the greatest idea the human mind ever had.” That bothers today’s author. Okay, here we go:

In this statement by Berra, we have a peek into the religion of atheistic evolution and its high priest, Charles Darwin. In Berra’s “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism,” he attacks fundamentalist Christians who espouse a 6,000-year “young” earth and a literal 6-day creation.

The article goes on to state that Berra could:

… examine the most intricate, gorgeous living systems — view the vastness and order of an unfathomable universe — and conclude that all came to be by chance without a shred of intelligent thinking. [He even believed] … life originated from inanimate (non-living) chemicals. … [And he] never wavers from this presupposition that all living plants and animals have their derivation in non-living, inorganic matter. All life forms from the simple to the complex are the product of inorganic chemical reactions.

Gasp! The deluded evolutionist actually believed that stuff. Today’s author is clearly horrified. He tells us:

This belief is the slippery slope, and the implications of this system of thought are vast and beyond the darkest of your imaginings. Chances are your mind has never darkened this door. Let’s open it!

Okay, here it comes — raw sewage from the mind of a full-blown creationist. The fetid flow begins:

In this “natural” world, you are an accident that has happened, a purposeless, worthless blob of protoplasm, a massive ball of chemical and electrical reactions caused by various stimuli. … As an animal, the only two functions basic to you are procreation and survival from disease, famine, predation and death. “Survival of the fittest!”

The implications of this thought system are vast and ominous and terrible.

Yes. It’s not at all like the joyous existence of humans in the world of Noah’s Ark, where at any moment all life on earth may be destroyed by divine will. Let’s read on:

For the atheist, we are living in a universe that is completely material. There is no personal or absent Creator and nothing beyond the grave. Here are the ultimate conclusions:

Note the assumption that a scientist must be an atheist. Today’s author is just getting warmed up. We continue:

Nothing is intrinsically evil because evil does not exist. How can evil originate from amoral, inorganic matter. There is no absolute right or wrong. My truth is not your truth nor yours mine — and your truth be damned! All morals, ethics and systems of belief are made up. All ideas, ways of thinking and patterns of life are mental imaginings and coping mechanisms. Pain and pleasure are sensory nerve endings responding to various stimuli. You are just a thing whose ancestors were one-celled amoebas.

He’s not fully cranked up yet. Here’s more:

You cannot have a moral code in a material world. If “all animal life, including human, is related by descent from a common ancestor” (Darwin), then the human species is merely an animal with usually a bigger brain. Ethics? Ethical animals? — an anomaly! The origin of an ethical life: the goo pond? The seven deadly sins and more are spawned in an amoral world. As long as you can do it and not get caught, go for it, because there’s nothing after nothing!

Aha! That explains why so many biology majors become drug dealers, mass murderers, and operators of global brothel chains that offer the services of enslaved children. Moving along:

The Golden Rule? Have you seen another animal species who wanted to be treated with fairness and dignity? It’s kill or be killed.

[…]

Socrates argued that conscience is innate. An animal has a conscience?

[…]

In his [Berra’s] material world nothing is scientifically valuable, in his natural universe nothing is irreplaceable, nothing is preserved, nothing is intact, nothing is forever. In the end, all will face the abyss.

[…]

Berra was just a genetic quirk, a chance happening in the evolutionary chain of events with absolutely no reason or purpose for his existence but as luck would have it.

We’re just picking out the highlights, so to speak. You’ll have to click over to the Mansfield News Journal if you want to read it all. Here’s how it ends:

How can truth, beauty and goodness come from the rocks? I don’t have that kind of faith!

So there you are, dear reader. The choice is yours. You are facing the abyss.

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

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #91: God or the Abyss

  1. It’s the usual playbook, and the hits just keep on comin’!

  2. James F says: “It’s the usual playbook …”

    Yeah, but in condensed form. The Cliff Notes version.

  3. Haaaaaahaaaahaaahaaaaahaaaaa!!!!!

    Man, these people are gullible, aren’t they?

  4. LRA says: “Haaaaaahaaaahaaahaaaaahaaaaa!!!!!”

    Spoken like a a purposeless, worthless blob of protoplasm.

  5. Hey!!!! I resemble that remark.

  6. God or the Abyss

    After reading that letter, I’ll take “the Abyss” for $1000, Alex….

  7. Longie, you’ve always been in the Abyss.

  8. So if “darwinism” leads to a moral abyss where there is no right and wrong, how does this jackass explain the Haggard’s, bad Catholic priests, and myriad of other religious figures that have lied, cheated, stole, and/or abused until they got caught? Of course, they can just “find Jesus” again and everything’s forgiven while us poor blobs of protoplasm have to suffer actual consequences for our actions. Now I’m off to continue my amoral existence unconstrained by little things like right and wrong like a good bit of plasm should…

  9. Why do people this daft put their email address at the bottom of the article?

  10. This thread is truly Abyss-mal.

  11. Hm, I actually find all kinds of truth, beauty and goodness in rocks.

    I’m even pretty cool with thinking of them as ancestors.

  12. Chris P asks: “Why do people this daft put their email address at the bottom of the article?”

    Because he’s proud of his article.

  13. retiredsciguy

    Hey, Curmy,
    If you think this columnist’s writings are bad, you should re-visit the link and read some of the comments that have been accumulating. Scary.

  14. retiredsciguy says: “… you should re-visit the link and read some of the comments …”

    I’ve been looking. Everyone in Mansfield is crazy.

  15. What gets me is the negative, way many of the creationists come across, towards humanity. They are effectively stating that ALL of us are amoral. Even themselves only know what a moral is because god sets out a code of conduct, which is reinforced by continual surveillance.

    Of course this is just more of their rhetoric, because that is not what they mean, but I can not help it if someone else makes an irrational argument. If morals can only come from god, or without god you can not have morals. Which many of your examples of Creationist Wisdom have out right said. Then my first statement is true by their own words.

    They can not even have the satisfaction of claiming even though god has said these are morals, and we in our hearts and mind know that these are correct morals, because they de nigh that ability to everyone else. If say an atheist can not read, or be taught morals, they can not either, because the only difference between them is an acceptance of god, and god’s word.

  16. . . . and Bellville, OH, is about halfway between Mansfield and Mt. Vernon; the latter’s claim to science education fame rests in the Tesla-coil-laden hands of John Freshwater.

    Scary-sounding area.

  17. Myself, I’m a big fan of the adjective ‘puerile’ and, as such, I feel that it isn’t used often enough.

    Having read this article, I can see an opening…

  18. Why the fraq didn’t I see Berra’s lecture last Thursday? I’d planned to. (Kicking myself.)

  19. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says: “… Bellville, OH, is about halfway between Mansfield and Mt. Vernon …”

    Mansfield isn’t even close to the Kentucky border, where Ken Ham’s creation museum is located. This means the Blighted Region must be more extensive than I had imagined.

  20. It may be a “scary-sounding area” to you, but it’s home to me. I grew up in those parts, and my Eighth Grade science teacher was one of Freshwater’s direct predecessors. I haven’t lived there in over forty years, so can’t speak to the situation now, but I remember the town fondly and have some idea of retiring there.

    Thinking back, though… I don’t recall much or anything being said about the evolution controversy when I was a lad. I knew many people who were religious, but I never heard anyone say outright that scientists had it all wrong and Genesis had to be taken literally in every detail. I did hear some speculation on what amounted to the “gap” theory or the idea that the Biblical “day” could have meant something much longer, or even that the Adam & Eve story was allegorical but contained valuable spiritual truth. I’m sure a lot of religious people were uncomfortable with evolution and would have been happier if the Bible stories they had grown up with could be shown to be literally true, but to the extent they thought about it, they seemed to come to some acceptable compromise between science and religion.

    What changed since then? I’d lay money on the publication of THE GENESIS FLOOD circa 1961. Henry Morris must have been aware that many sincere Christians weren’t happy with evolution but grudgingly accepted it because the prestige and authority of science were behind it. Morris’s contribution was to tell people what they wanted to hear and convince them it was *okay* (Dr. Phil voice) to believe in Six-Day Creation after all. That started the avalanche, I would guess, since as late as 1957, in Martin Gardner’s FADS AND FALLACIES IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, Gardner was writing about Genesis-literalism pretty much in the past tense, and could afford to look at George McCready Price and “Flood Geology” as an amusing relic of a bygone era rather than as a clear and present danger.

    My Eighth Grade science teacher had some issues of his own of a different sort, but he did sincerely want to do right by the kids in teaching them science. What I recall most warmly was that he would lend me his science-fiction magazines when he was done reading them. Somehow I doubt if Mr. Freshwater was doing that…