Creationist Wisdom #121: Irreconcilable

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Creationism, evolution can’t be reconciled, which appears in the Decatur Daily, published in Decatur, Alabama. 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:

As a young earth creationist, I also say “yes” to both God and science. But I differ with those who believe that Biblical creationism and Darwinian evolution can be bridged.

This should be good. Let’s read on:

Some of the ideas that attempt to connect these two divergent ideas are theistic evolution, progressive creation, and the framework hypothesis. The Intelligent Design movement refutes evolution by showing that the complexity existing in living organisms (as well as the orderliness in the universe) make chance formation impossible. The odds that these structures developed out of nothing and then became increasingly complex can be refuted mathematically.

O ye gods, the odds! See: The Inevitability of Evolution. We continue:

No evolutionist has ever bridged the gap from non-life to life as was necessary for development of the first living cell (Law of Biogenesis).

Aaaargh!! See Abiogenesis FAQs: Articles on the Origin of Life. Stay with us. It gets even better:

Nor has anyone shown that entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics — tendency for things to run down and become random) has been displaced in the supposed progression from simple to complex.

Aaaargh!! Here’s more:

Mutations are the mantra for biological evolution; but mutations, which are usually neutral or detrimental, cannot create DNA and can only rearrange the DNA already present. No additional information can be added, as is necessary to upgrade to more complex organisms.

Aaaargh!! Moving along:

Fruit flies have been studied under laboratory conditions for 50-plus years and have resulted in countless different kinds of mutations and yet continue to be fruit flies — no vertical (more complex) species have developed.

Aaaargh!! That’s “micro yes, macro no.” See: Micro Macro, Tutti Frutti. Another excerpt:

The two ideologies above are based on presuppositions, of which only two exist: a Biblical view or man’s view.

Those are the only two possibilities. It’s time to declare yourself! And now we come to the end:

The first 11 chapters of Genesis are history and form the foundation for creation as well as all the major doctrines of the entire Bible. Is the authority of God’s Word true, or do we pick and choose that which fits our own presupposition?

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

It couldn’t be more clear. The choice is yours, dear reader.

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #121: Irreconcilable

  1. Dare I say the letter writer is an IDiot or creotard? Ah, why not, the letter writer is a retard.

  2. Sigh… It is just sad that this fellow believes he has all the answers yet every single point could be refuted in about ten minutes. And I’d also like to ask if we shouldn’t pick and choose that which fits our presuppositions, then which Genesis story are we going to go with? There are two very distinct ones to choose from, so one or the other is going to be picked and the other discarded…

  3. Ugh! How many times can you battle the same spewed crap over and over and over and over and over…. ad infinitum???

    😦

    Why don’t these anti-science people try to change what global pilots are taught concerning international flight paths that take the earth’s curvature into account? I mean, the earth looks flat to me!!!

    Why don’t these anti-science people try to destroy Einstein’s theory of relativity??? After all, isn’t that just post-modern theorizing that throws out millenia of absolute spacetime in favor of *gasp* relative truth?????

    Why don’t these anti-science people take down organic chemistry– a science in which inorganic materials can be mixed together to make *double gasp!!!* organic molecules?!?!!?!?!!!?

  4. As a young earth creationist, I also say “yes” to both God and science.

    Wow. Utter failure in the first sentence.

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    You have to pick and choose from the Bible; even Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contain irreconcilable versions of the Creation.

    Read carefully the order in Genesis 1, where humans, male and female, are created last, and Genesis 2 where you have Adam, animals, and THEN Eve.

  6. Gabriel Hanna says: “You have to pick and choose from the Bible …”

    Nope. It’s all true. No worries, mate.

  7. The “wise” author wrote: “As a young earth creationist, I also say ‘yes’ to both God and science.”

    So put your money with your mouth is and challenge OECs and IDers on the age of the earth instead of parroting the same old long-refuted sound bites. And don’t use their refusal to debate you as an excuse.

  8. The notorious Floyd Lee attampted to prove the “incompatibility” of Xtianity and Evilushun in an epic thread at AtBC.

    The Lulz Were Lush.