Creationist Wisdom #137: Indescribable

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Rebelling against Go. We’ve copied the title correctly; it’s up to you to figure out what it means.

Today’s letter appears in the York Daily Record, published in York, Pennsylvania. It’s the paper that once provided the world with excellent local coverage of the Dover trial.

Today’s letter is so … different that you’ll just have to try to decipher it for yourself. We’d like to tell you more about the letter, but that paper is owned by Media News Group, and they’re suing bloggers who excerpt their stories without permission. So you’ll have to click over there to read it for yourself.

All that we can get from this is that author is opposed to the theory of evolution. As for the rest of his thinking, well, you’re on your own.

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

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #137: Indescribable

  1. I thought it was going to be some attack on the Oriental board game.

    But, no, it was just… this.

  2. Gary says: “But, no, it was just… this.”

    I report, you decide.

  3. “No wonder our young people are confused about the beginnings of life…”
    Some decent sex ed courses would help with that.

  4. Crudely Wrott

    Honest reportage of history would help even more. I am constantly amazed at the difference between the history I have studied and that which has recently been proposed as somehow “better.”

    What can be better than reality?

    I acknowledge that the history I have learned may not be perfectly accurate; few second hand reports are. That’s why I like to read the history of something that happened, say, one hundred years ago that was written one hundred years ago. Or maybe ninety nine. After the dust settled. But fifty or five years ago? Yesterday?

    I’ll take familiarity over dogmatic revisionism any day, thanks. Kooks and godbotherers are not the only ones guilty of gilding the past. The reader must always be on guard. SOP.

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    @Crudely Wrott:

    Primary sources are often a lot more fun, and sometimes they teach you more. But you have to sift them. Herodotus says he saw rat-size ants mining gold, and Procopius says he saw Justinian and Theodora fuse into a hermaphrodite demon.

    Churchill’s history of World War II is a landmark of literature and a fantastic primary source, but it is also rather self-interested. He usually only gives his side of a correspondence, And you will find almost no mention of the Holocaust.

    When secondary sources are written by professional historians, because they (in theory) have a breadth of scholarship they can correct some of the biases and outright lies of primary sources–of course they add some of their own, so you read more than one.

    The best historical scholarship can be good for centuries–for example, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has held up extraordinarily well, even though we have so much more primary material than Gibbon had.

  6. Crudely Wrott

    Right you are, Gabriel.

    I happen to enjoy the sifting, as you call it. Gibbon certainly did his share of it, and must have been totally absorbed in it as the finished work amply demonstrates.

    On my desk right now is H. G. Wells’ Outline of History, Vol. II. Sometimes I read it just for fun while marveling that such a history could hardly be published today.

    History is an elusive quarry and it can be hard to separate it from the historian sometimes.

  7. Gabriel Hanna

    In my office I have a copy of Tacitus, and you might describe it as a “primary source”, but Tacitus wasn’t even born for much of what he writes about. I’m reading “Romance of the Three Kingdoms” now, but it was written about a thousand years after the events it describes and is much better described as historical fiction.

    And if you read Kings and Chronicles closely, you can see that the Book of Deuteronomy is a very ancient forgery.

  8. I can’t resist quoting from The Machine stops by E.M. Forster.

    “Beware of first-
    hand ideas!” exclaimed one of the most advanced of them.
    “First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the
    physical impressions produced by live and fear, and on this
    gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your
    ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then
    they will be far removed from that disturbing element –
    direct observation.”

    Learn instead what
    I think that Enicharmon thought Urizen thought Gutch thought
    Ho-Yung thought Chi-Bo-Sing thought LafcadioHearn thought
    Carlyle thought Mirabeau said about the French Revolution.

  9. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Primary sources are often a lot more fun, and sometimes they teach you more. But …

    That rang a bell and sent me scurrying to find what it reminded me of. It’s the research method of one of Asimov’s characters in the Foundation series — the decadent and roguishly-named Lord Dorwin, who eschewed primary sources. I found a website with Dorwin’s dialogue, but it’s devilishly difficult to read: Lord Dorwin discusses his “research”.