Creationist Wisdom #106: Big Bang

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled The Big Bang is still just theory, not fact, which appears in the Morning Call, the daily newspaper for Allentown, Pennsylvania.

This is a very short letter so we’ll copy it all, omitting the writer’s name and city, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:

A Jan. 6 article included an image of the universe 600 million years after the Big Bang. The disturbing part of the article is the way the ”Big Bang” is presented as fact, when it is only a theory and cannot be proven, at least not yet.

Yes, it’s very disturbing. Let’s read on:

Forget about ”In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” — what really happened was, there was this Big Bang! Oh, really?

He’s right — the newspaper should have presented both sides. After all, they’re both perfectly good, scientific theories. We continue:

Last month, I seem to recall reading in The Morning Call a reprint of Virginia’s letter and an editor’s answer regarding Santa Claus. So The Morning Call can’t be accused of being one-sided.

He’s probably taking about this oldie-goldie: Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Having established that the newspaper supports at least some children’s stories, the letter-writer wraps it up like this:

Evolution, global warming, and the Big Bang — I think I’ll put my money on God and Santa Claus!

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

That’s a peculiar pair of preferences, but when one rejects science, the letter-writer’s choice makes as much sense as any other. We support his freedom to have the worldview that makes him happy.

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

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #106: Big Bang

  1. That “Santa” reference is pure POEtry…

  2. I demand equal time for the Tooth Fairy.

  3. I’m thinking Poe’s Law here. It’s just so hard to tell the difference sometimes though.

  4. Creationists sure choke on the word “theory.” I saw it pop up in an odd place a week or two back. A pet-owners’ website called Paw-Nation ran a piece about a science exhibit somewhere that simulated how your dog sees the world. Obviously, you can’t put yourself inside Fido’s head, but you can examine the structure of his eyes to see what colors he can perceive, count tastebuds on his tongue, test his responses to sounds to see how high his hearing goes, and so on. All this was very carefully explained, and seemingly perfectly straightforward and hardly controversial, but in the comments section, someone skeptically piped up, “How can you really know what a dog sees and feels? That’s just theory!”

    There was that seeming demand for an absolute knowledge (and then basically saying it was impossible to ever know anything about it for sure), then that canned verbal formulation, it’s just a theory! It’s straight out of the Creationist phrasebook, but reused in an odd context.

    How a Creationist sees the world — now that would be a science exhibit! (Though there is that place in Kentucky…) This may be a hint that people trained in Creationist thought patterns are turning them to other, seemingly unrelated areas, a kind of ignorant skepticism that rejects anything the least bit scientific as “just a theory.”

  5. As Luther says, Reason is the enemy of Faith.

    Got to keep your priorities right, after all.

  6. Deklane speculates:

    How a Creationist sees the world — now that would be a science exhibit!

    Indeed — but it would need a museum with many wings to accomodate the multiple and mutually-exclusive Creationisms that are out there. Apart from agreeing that Darwin was an agent of Lucifer, there is little common ground between OEC’s and YEC’s, though they work very hard to keep the cracks between them papered over. Casey Luskin, for example, is clearly an OEC but has never, at least as I am aware, uttered a syllable to descry the utter rubbish spouted by Answers in Genesis.

  7. Megalonyx: “Indeed — but it would need a museum with many wings to accomodate the multiple and mutually-exclusive Creationisms that are out there.”

    Thank you! It’s refreshing not having to always be the one to mention that.

    The DI wing of course would only have exhibits “designed” to promote doubt of evolution. And they would have no problem “borrowing” negative arguments from YECs and OECs, while insisting that ID is not creationism and that the designer is not necessarily God.