Creationist Wisdom #100: Circumcision

AS this series of posts reaches the milestone of number one hundred, we present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Circumcision by an Intern, which appears in the Salem News, a newspaper that serves Salem, Oregon, far from the other Salem where they once hanged witches.

The topic of today’s letter is one we haven’t seen before in The Controversy about evolution. It’s a bit delicate, and some of you may be squeamish, so we’ll copy less than usual from today’s letter. We’ll also omit the writer’s name and city, add some bold for emphasis, and toss in some Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs.

Brace yourselves, gentlemen. Here we go:

For many years I wondered about this Biblical/archaic procedure. I was intact when …

We don’t care about the letter-writer’s bodily integrity. The only reason we’re presenting this letter is because of the evolution-creationism connection. Let’s read on:

I don’t know about M.D. internships. I am a doctor of osteopathy, D.O. I’m sure we do things differently. It must be working well because about 12 D.O. schools have sprung up in the last 20 years.

We included that for context, to help you judge the letter-writer’s statements. We understand that osteopathy is controversial; but it may even be controversial as to whether the discipline is controversial. We don’t know about any of that, and we don’t care, but we found this interesting: eight major principles of osteopathy.

With that out of the way, we continue:

Anyhow, we D.O.’s go through rotations of all general practice subjects including OB-GYN and pediatrics where we better pay attention with newborn boys.

I remember my fearless leader/doctor performing a couple of these procedures one particular day. I was told by the maternity nurse that the doctor/teacher said I should do a circumcision on his newest boy child patient.

That strikes us as an unusual way for an intern to get his instructions, but we won’t get into that either. And we’ll skip over the letter-writer’s description of the procedure he performed on that patient.

We’re avoiding a lot here, aren’t we? Never mind all that — let’s jump right to what it was that drew our attention to this letter:

For the future I was always too busy. Yes I can do a circ but I don’t want some 20-year old guy looking for me with fire in his eye.


I’m inclined to go along with the advocates of Intelligent Design. Every animal I know about has a foreskin or equivalent.


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

We were going to include the name of the learned osteopath who authored today’s letter, but there’s really no need for that. You’re going to click over to the Salem News anyway.

[Okay, gentlemen, you can relax again.] So, class, what did we learn today? It seems that we’ve learned about a new characteristic of creationists. If some reliable polling organization wants to conduct the survey, we’ll post the results.

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #100: Circumcision

  1. I’m surprised! I was expecting this to be a creationist argument for why God made boys with foreskins yet then ordered that said foreskins be removed. I’ve actually wondered about that one for a while. God made man perfect, but, oh, wait, get rid of the foreskin.

    That and wisdom teeth. since most human jaws are not big enough to hold them.

    Oh, of course, the pain of impacted wisdom teeth must be part of the punishment for The Fall. I suppose that goes for circumcision, too.

    Then again, that forces the Judeo/Christian God into the picture and, as we all know, ID is not about God AT ALL!

  2. A corollary to “vindication of all kooks”. “No enemies to the crazy”.

    Anti-vaccine and anti-circumcision people are probably more at home in the creationist movement than they are in mainstream biology.

    Though I do know anti-nuclear and anti-GMO food physicists, who I really think should know better.

  3. jugglingbuffoon

    Osteopathy is pretty crazy. And I was surprised by this letter.
    But MGM is evil and should be banned. I don’t really care if crazy people and creationists are against it.

  4. But MGM is evil and should be banned.

    It’s one thing to be agin it–I can think of several reasons. It’s another to be over-the-top, and that’s why I used the word “crazy”.

    Saying it’s evil and should be banned and using the word “MGM”, comparing it to what is done to women in Africa and the Middle East, where they’re actually sewing things shut, is over the top.

    I didn’t have my foreskin long enough to miss it, millions of men in this country are in the same position, and circumcision doesn’t have any ill health effects or impede normal sexual functioning.

    Before you go into a rant about all the bad health effects and how normal sexual functioning without a foreskin is impossible–when millions of Americans through direct experience know perfectly is not true–consider that you are trying not to appear crazy.

  5. As an uncircumcised male my view on the practice of circumcision is ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. From my experience it appears to be entirely unnecessary, and when I have children I shall not have them circumcised. If they later decide for themselves to have it done, that’s fine too, as it will have been their decision.

  6. Advocates of Intelligent Design have a position on circumcision? The author seems to imply that IDers are against it but I have seen no evidence of that. If anything, considering their not so subtle religious bias, I would think they are as much, if not more, for it as the general population.

  7. I go along with Chris, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Circumcision is rarely a medical necessity. If it wasn’t for the religious nonsense surrounding the practice, it wouldn’t be done. It would make more sense to give every baby an appendectomy. The appendix gives more problems than foreskin later on in life.

  8. I wasn’t expecting anyone to announce his physical status regarding this issue. It’s sufficient that you have no explosives concealed in your shorts.

  9. “It’s sufficient that you have no explosives concealed in your shorts.”
    How can one tell? Are you using one of those full-body scanners?

  10. I still think it goes against Creationism.

    If God created man perfectly, why did he need to tell his chosen people to circumcize their boys?

    Is God into genital multilation or did he just err in giving us foreskins and so said they have to come off?

  11. jugglingbuffoon

    You need to look up the definitions of “male”, “genital” and “mutilation”.

    Here is a site to help you

    And your argument about “millions of men” is so bad that I shouldn’t even have to explain why it is wrong.

  12. Calm down, jugglingbuffoon. That’s not the sort of conversation we want around here.