Creationist Wisdom — Example 92

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Let creationists have say, which appears in the Shields Gazette, the oldest provincial evening newspaper in the United Kingdom. We’ve visited them before. See: Creationist Wisdom — Example 58

We’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, and adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:

I AM writing this in response to letters which imply that evolution is a proven fact and that people who believe in creation have escaped from the lunatic asylum. There are scientists who are Christians and believe in creationism, and there are intelligent people, such as consultants, doctors, solicitors and engineers who are also believers.

They really should improve security at the lunatic asylum. Let’s read on:

Regarding evolution, if there was a big bang, where did the components of it come from and why did they explode? Does an explosion create order? No, it creates chaos and destruction.

Yeah! Take that, Darwinists! We continue:

The universe is enormous and yet our little planet is the only known one sustaining life – why?

Uh, maybe because we’ve only recently been developing instruments to conduct a search?

The letter-writer goes on at some length with the usual catalog of privileged planet facts — the earth’s rotational speed, distance from the sun, the tilt of its rotational axis, distance of the moon, etc. We assume the letter-writer didn’t get that information from his bible, but that’s okay. Creationists are allowed to pick and choose their data. Here’s more:

If the crust of the earth had been only 10 inches thicker, there would be no oxygen. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absolved, and therefore, no vegetable life could exist.

Huh? Whaaa??? Never mind. Moving along:

The most brilliant minds in the world could not create life from nothing and yet we are told it just happened. The French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur’s experiments concluded that only life could create life.

Pasteur again. See: Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life. Another excerpt:

Two scientists, Professors Sir Fred Hoyle an Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the mathematical chances of life starting spontaneously. They concluded that there must be a God.

Those two. We discussed them briefly here: Creationist Wisdom — Example 22, and that was more attention than their creationism argument deserved.

On with the letter:

Has anyone ever seen a programme on TV where creationism is promoted? I certainly haven’t.

He’s never seen The Flintstones? And now we come to the end:

Let people see both sides of the argument and then let them decide.

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

There’s not much to say here, except that creationists in the UK seem to be just as confused as those in the US.

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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 92

  1. SC : This is interesting; will we see reaction from IDers?
    J Meyers Toronto

  2. Anonymous asks: “… will we see reaction from IDers?”

    If they bother with it, it’ll be the usual claim that evolution is in chaos. Standard stuff.

  3. This letter is, I think, only the latest in a long series initiated in response to a play that was performed in whatever city the paper is based (South Shields?).

  4. Grumpy Bob, I note that the Darwin Brewery is located there. That might also be a contributing cause.

  5. SC — Sorry: I meant go look at this interesting report in Nature!

  6. It seems all this guy wants is more TV shows on creationism. Too lazy to go to church? At least he isn’t advocating equal time for it in schools yet. Or is he saving that for his next diatribe? I don’t know what TV programming in the UK is like but, in my corner of the USA, religious programming outnumbers scientific programming about 4 to 1. Maybe he ought to move over here?

  7. Oh dear, it seems we have this problem in the UK too.
    We have had the recent embarrassment of four clerics in Norfolk who were equally stupid. One could only remember the late Norfolk GP who added to his notes ‘NFN’ (normal for Norfolk).
    Do we have a similar acronym for South Shields?

  8. The fountain of wisdom wrote: “Let people see both sides of the argument and then let them decide.”

    Been there done that. And those who have seen “both sides of the argument” including the responses to all the picked-and-chosen misrepresentation from the one side overwhelmingly accept evoluton. And that group includes nearly all biologists, even though they have the most to gain by falsifying it. And it includes most science-literate devout Christians.

    Of course what the “fountain of wisdom” means is to let students see “both sides” and only if the side that does the misrepresenting (and avoids developing its own theory) gets to have the last word.

  9. Spot on FrankJ. Creationist never seem to get that we DO examine their “evidence.” I spent all day arguing with a guy who asserted that because the universe is logical, and God has to be logical, then God must exist. That his “logical” proof was just a host of assumptions was completely lost on him, because he just couldn’t get past his own prejudices. Oh and my refusal to admit his point was “my cultural blindness and denseness.” So the entire argument was an obtuse circular argument, peppered with unproven assumptions and of course personal insults, which was also entirely my fault. And these guys wonder why we don’t have an ounce of respect for them.

  10. I like that word absolve, it’s like something The Blob would say: “I absolve you, my son.”

  11. Hey folks,

    The UK creationists have sidled out the shadows and sent loads of US books to Uk schools – again.