Creationist Wisdom — Example 95

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Darwin didn’t really prove much, which appears in the Daily Pilot, published by the Los Angeles Times to serve Orange County, California.

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

David Pearson’s Dec. 11 letter (“Scientists respect Darwin”) brings up some interesting points that are at the crux of the age-old question of whether God is a creator or we humans are the result of a cosmic accident.

This is Pearson’s letter. He provocatively said: “Religion is based on blind faith and has nothing to do with science, reason or logic.” That triggered the response from today’s letter-writer.

Let’s read on, as we’re told about the “age-old question” — or perhaps we should call it the age-old false dichotomy — cosmic accident or God:

The starting point of the cosmic accident viewpoint is that at some time in the primeval past, there was a spark in a pool of water that initiated chemical reactions that built the essential amino-acid building blocks of life.

Ah yes, the Kaboom! theory. Hey, it’s so much faster than that sluggish six-day creation stuff. We continue:

Since then, there have been many credible scientists who, while not religious, are at a loss to explain the chasm between the staggeringly remote possibility of these incredibly complex molecules, which are key to life, arising by chance, as opposed to them being what they really are, a digital code.

The “staggeringly remote possibility.” Oooo! A digital code! Ooooo! Oooooo! Here’s more:

How do we have a design without a designer, or a code without a planner? Random chance? Perhaps, but it does not seem rational to think that complexity comes from randomness. The scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves that notion, because it proves that order disintegrates down into disorder.

Lots of creationist goodies in that one paragraph! Design requires designer, code requires planner, no complexity from randomness. And as a year-end bonus — the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is terrific!

Moving along:

Darwin did not prove evolution, he only observed microevolution within species, not macroevolution between species.

Micro-Macro. This letter has it all! Another excerpt:

He put forth his “theory” of evolution. In fact, he stated that he hoped that future discoveries in the fossil record would reveal transitional life forms between species to prove his theory. The lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record is still the dilemma faced by the evolutionists. One of the most notable of these scientists was Stephen J. Gould, who said

It doesn’t get any better. The word “theory” in scare quotes, no transitional fossils, and a mined quote. The only thing missing is a partridge in a pear tree. Here’s more:

The bottom line of this age-old controversy of God creating mankind versus chance evolution is that most of us do not want to be in any way responsible to someone who made and created us, because it infers responsibility. So, we would rather believe that we are cosmic accidents, and that when we die, it’s over.

No responsibility! Where’s that welfare check? On with the letter:

There is absolutely no purpose in life if you take this line of thought to the extreme of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”

Right. But there’s a whole Ark-load of purpose in life if you literally believe in Noah’s Flood, according to which a deity can wipe us all out on a divine whim — maybe because some long ago ancestor got conned by a snake. Oh yeah — there’s a purposeful vision of life!

Does today’s letter-writer have any more creationist goodies for us?

If so, we are just brute beasts, just a little higher than the next life form. Why do we have emotions, and a conscience? Why do we have feelings like love? Why do we respond to art, music and sunsets? Why can we communicate our thoughts through speech? These are not necessary if we are accidental.

Brute beasts, no conscience, no love. Why respond to sunsets? We’re all just kinda grunting and groping around. Oook, oook!

And now we come to the end:

Did Darwin really prove anything? Not really, only that finches beaks adapt to different environments. Which is it? Creation or evolution?

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

There you are, dear reader. Which is it?

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 95

  1. Curmudgeon: “Ah yes, the Kaboom! theory. Hey, it’s so much faster than that sluggish six-day creation stuff.”

    Right. And you “Darwinists” can have your water (actually that’s quite novel), goo, slime, scum, mud, muck, etc. I’ll take dust any day. I got “proof”. My body has only blood, sweat and tears, no “chemicals” like H2O. 😉

  2. Frank J notes

    My body has only blood, sweat and tears…

    You might want to check with Gen. Jack D. Ripper on this, you haven’t offered a fully comprehensive list of Vital Bodily Fluids…

  3. I used to live in Orange County. The place is an amazing pool of religiosity and ignorance.

  4. *headslap*
    Another scattergun/scatterbrain argument against evolution.

  5. *headslap*
    Another scattergun/scatterbrain argument against evolution.

    I love people who argue against the possibility that life could have occurred by chance so it must have been a designer. These are the same people who bet on the lottery where the odds aren’t much better.

    I really don’t understand the argument that belief in evolution somehow means that people are no longer responsible for their actions, that they can’t be moral. In what way is it better to responsible/moral by being forced into it by some god than to do it because it makes more sense?

  6. RogerE: “. . .These are the same people who bet on the lottery where the odds aren’t much better.”

    I’m gonna steal that line!!

  7. Well, I’ll give the author credit. He manage to cram in just about every popular cretard canard out there. But he did miss one. If he were truly dedicated, he should have had an entire paragraph on Piltdown Man and Climategate. Only then, would we have the complete set of Creationist Claims.

  8. megalonyx: “You might want to check with Gen. Jack D. Ripper on this, you haven’t offered a fully comprehensive list of Vital Bodily Fluids.”

    For brevity I omitted the PCBs, dioxins, a bit of nerve & blister agent that I worked with back when, all sorts of polynuclear aromatics and much more. But nothing “organic”. 😉

    If you believe the “safety nazis”, I should have died 20 years ago.

  9. Why do we respond to art, music and sunsets?

    Something tells me the art this guy responds to involves a velvet Elvis or dogs playing poker.

  10. RogerE> “. . .These are the same people who bet on the lottery where the odds aren’t much better.”

    Another funny thing about lotteries, is that someone always wins.

    Dang, now I’ve just got to go find a Creationist to use these lines on.

  11. @Tomato Addict, “Another funny thing about lotteries, is that someone always wins.”

    Well, no. Just look at how often the Powerball Jackpot prize goes unclaimed. Of course, the prize amount grows every week which entices more people to bet on it until someone eventually wins.

    Then there are all the stories about how winning the Powerball is a curse.