Creationist Wisdom #102: The Pastor

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled The Darwin Delusion, which appears in the Sudbury Star, a Canadian daily newspaper published in Sudbury, Ontario.

Today’s letter is by Rob Weatherby, described as Pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church in Whitefish, Ontario. Here’s the church’s website. We’ll copy parts of today’s letter, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:

In 1859, Darwin’s book tried to explain life, as we know it today, slowly “evolved,” or developed over vast periods of time, by a process he called “natural selection.” He claimed that all organisms had descended from a common ancestor and he illustrated this with his “tree of life” sketch. Slowly (over a much shorter period of time) this theory has gained popularity until today it enjoys a virtual monopoly in our science textbooks.

Yes, Darwin “tried to explain” those things. But he can’t fool the pastor. Let’s read on:

Alternate explanations, such as the growing scientific evidence for “intelligent design,” or the biblical belief in divine creation, are quickly dismissed and denied equal time. In fact, they’re given no time. But how convincing is Darwin’s theory?

Ah, the pastor must be one of the few to have seen the “growing scientific evidence” for intelligent design. Most of us haven’t been so fortunate. We continue:

After the unearthing of innumerable fossils since Darwin’s time, scientists are still searching for the “missing links” between species. …

Yeah, still searching. Here’s more:

Recent discoveries about DNA and the incredible complexity of a single cell raise new questions about the theory. Biochemist Michael Behe in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, challenges evolution with the idea of “irreducible complexity.” He explains that some very complex forms (like protein) could not have evolved any more than a mouse trap could, because a basic complexity is required for it to work.

News must be slow reaching some parts of Canada. Behe seems to be hot news up in Whitefish. Moving along:

Darwin’s theory also leads to some disturbing implications. If human life today is merely the accidental result of unguided, purposeless evolution over time, then what is the value and meaning of human life and what is the foundation of morality?

Hey, pastor — what’s the value of human life if it can get wiped out in a global Flood based on divine whim? Another excerpt:

And then there’s the unanswered question of where did it all begin. Did life evolve from “non-life?” And if so, where did the “non-life” (matter, liquids, gases) come from?

Okay, there are unanswered questions. What does that mean — Oogity Boogity is the answer? On with the letter:

Belief in evolution and belief in God both require faith. Some would say that belief in evolution takes even more faith than belief in God. The apostle Paul described …

The pastor is a man of faith. Unfortunately it’s all he knows, and he makes the all-too-common assumption that it’s all there is to know. Here’s more:

I can understand why modern man desperately wants to believe in evolution. Without God in the picture, he feels free to live his life as he wants, without any moral restraint or authority to tell him otherwise.

Yes, we’re all rapists and serial killers here. And now we come to the thrilling end:

I stood over Darwin’s tomb at Westminster Abbey a couple of years ago. Somehow, I don’t think he’s deluded anymore.

He never was.

Copyright © 2010. 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

6 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #102: The Pastor

  1. Same ol’, same ol’… The definite problem with relying on a 2000 years playbook, is that everyone already knows all your plays. Though I did like the preemptive moving of the goal posts the pastor did. Ha! “If you happen to find out how chemicals turned into life, than answer where those chemicals came from. Betcha can’t! God of Gaps!”

  2. “Darwin’s theory also leads to some disturbing implications. …”

    The Curmudgeon skipped Pastor Rob’s next paragraph, “Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer simply takes the theory to its logical conclusion when he defends the killing of handicapped babies, which he believes are of less value than healthy pigs or chimpanzees.”

    Gee, how did the Pastor miss mentioning Hitler? Of course, the Pastor oversimplified Singer’s position which had nothing to do with evolution. Why is it that whenever someone wants to take things to their “logical conclusion”, they always go to irrational extremes? Isn’t that how we got the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and the current batch of religious terrorism?

  3. Gabriel Hanna

    Isn’t that how we got the Crusades…

    A little digression. Why are the Crusades so bad that they get mentioned in the same breath as the Inquisition, when the jihad that conquered roughly half the formerly Christian world, starting from the seventh century well up into the seventeenth, never gets mentioned along with it?

    North Africa, Turkey, Palestine and Syria were all Christian before the rise of Islam. The Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression.

    As for the sackings and massacres of the Crusades, this is how ALL wars were fought at that time, even the secular ones.

  4. I think it because the sheer pointlessness of some of them, that were badly led and manned. Calumniating in the last crusade that sacked Constantinople, which was a Christian city, because they had wined and dined and partied so much they went bankrupt in Venice, and sacked that city purely as a way to pay of the Venetians.

  5. Gabriel Hanna asks, “Why are the Crusades so bad that they get mentioned in the same breath as the Inquisition…”

    That’s because it is usually Christians bringing up the “evils” of evolution exhorting us to get right with God and/or Jesus. They need reminding that the history of their religion has its own share of “evils”. I DID mention a couple of non-Christian “evils” in the same sentence.

  6. The article allows comments so I left one. Gotta love it whan someone expresses incredulity of common descent, then cites Behe of all people.