Creationist Wisdom #139: Stultissimus Maximus

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Creationism vs. evolutionary atheism, which appears in the News-Herald, published in Willoughby, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland.

This one starts out with the usual litany of creationist misinformation, examples of which we’ve seen so often before. Were that the letter’s only contents, it wouldn’t achieve a place in our series — but this letter transcends the ordinary. Near the end, it reveals the motives of evolutionists, and attempts to place everything in a political context. It’s a marvel of false premises, logical fallacies, and bizarre conclusions.

We can’t help it. We know it’s like slowing down to observe an especially grisly traffic accident — but we couldn’t ignore this letter. And in reading it, we are reminded once again of the age-old question: Which came first, creationism or brain-death?

Anyway, we’ll copy some 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:

There are millions of fossils in the museums today. Yet there is not one of the missing links of the evolution to be found. Yet some have resorted to make one. Piltdown Man was such. …

We’ve been there before. Today’s letter-writer wanders through the swamp of Piltdown Man, dutifully mentioning the imaginary “500 doctoral dissertations” about him (see Index to Creationist Claims). Then he goes on to Nebraska Man (debunked here) and claims, wrongly, that it was used at the Scopes trial. We’ll step around all that, as we would something nasty on the sidewalk, and read on:

What about DNA? Does it support evolution or creation? I read that DNA is an extremely complex living molecule.

It’s alive — alive!! We continue:

Moreover, worthless and false information about dinosaurs is taught to our elementary school children to bolster atheism, not even considering the evidence from the other side.

At that point, the letter-writer drags out the myth that dinosaur fossils are found with hot red meat clinging to the bones, a creationist absurdity that’s been debunked a thousand times — for example, here at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

But he doesn’t stop there. Then he quotes the bible — specifically the passage in Job which mentions the “behemoth,” and says that‘s the dinosaur. We must give due credit here for comprehensiveness — there seems to be no nonsensical claim that is overlooked in this letter. But then, after that massive heap of nothing the letter-writer thinks is evidence, we finally get to the good stuff:

What are the motives of the evolutionists? Here are some of them:

Okay, get ready to have your deep, dark purposes revealed for all the world to see:

Aldous Huxley said: “I had motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. … For myself, the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

Julian Huxley, known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” said: “I suppose the reason we leaped at ‘Origin of Species’ was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”

There it is, dear reader. You can’t hide it any more. It’s all about “liberation, sexual and political.” Here’s more:

The effects of evolutionary atheism are enormous. Here are some:

Can you guess? We’ll spare you any quotes from the letter-writer’s catalog of horrors. He mentions Mao and Stalin, communists, and Hitler, the increasing prison population, and then he tosses in what seems to be a swipe at global warming.

As the letter reaches its climax, it shifts to politics. See if you can follow this:

We saw that the real motive of evolution is atheism. Evolution has no base in science, none. Evolution only prostitutes science to propagate atheism.

Then where do evolutionists get their support to teach our school children atheism? It comes mainly from the faculties of universities to faculties of kindergartens. It comes from the leaders of teachers unions, legal organizations, media and entertainment. And all their support ends up in the Democratic Party.

Ah, so those are the bad guys. What’s to be done about it? We’re told at the letter’s end:

On the other hand, the Republican Party fights against evolutionary atheism. The final support for or against evolution comes from you and me, the voters. To vote Republican is to vote for God’s creation. To vote Democrat is to vote for evolutionary atheism.

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

There you are, dear reader. You’ve been told The Truth and you no longer have any excuses.

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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #139: Stultissimus Maximus

  1. Bob Carroll

    And, of course, Julian Huxley (d. 1975) was Aldous’ brother, the grandson of Thomas , “Darwin’s Bulldog.” I wouldn’d put any trust in those quotes, either.

  2. retiredsciguy

    Leter writer says, “…the Republican Party fights against evolutionary atheism. … To vote Democrat is to vote for evolutionary atheism.”

    If that were truly the case, the Republicans have lost a vote. It does seem at times as though that’s the way the Republican Party is headed.

  3. retiredsciguy says:

    It does seem at times as though that’s the way the Republican Party is headed.

    True, but polls show that close to a third of Democrats are creationists. That’s a lot less than the percentage of Republicans, but it’s not at all a party-line issue. At least not yet.

  4. longshadow

    The letter writer has exposed the soft fleshy underbelly of the Atheist-Evolutionary Conspiracy — we believe Darwin because we want to have hot licentious sex with goats.

    Of course, that raises the obvious question — how is it the letter-writer knows so much about the joys of wild goat sex? Hmmmmmmmm????

  5. Longie asks:

    how is it the letter-writer knows so much about the joys of wild goat sex?

    I’m pretty sure it’s part of creation science.

  6. longshadow

    The quotes appear to be fabricated, quote mined, or otherwise ginned up by the Vast Creationoid Hive, one of which is traceable to Henry Morris:

  7. Longie says:

    The quotes appear to be fabricated, quote mined, or otherwise ginned up …

    But creationists don’t lie. Lying requires intent, and intent requires some degree of mental activity.

  8. “intent requires some degree of mental activity.”

    Yes, they are the living embodiment of Searle’s Chinese room:

  9. LRA says: “Searle’s Chinese room”

    I didn’t know about that. Most interesting.

  10. One comment to this pearl of “wisdom” said, “This article is full of misconceptions and constant lying. The person who wrote this nonsense is obviously not qualified to write about science. Perhaps you decided to publish it anyway to make all Christians look like fools.”

    Considering how often these type of “opinion” pieces receive mainly negative comments, I wonder if there isn’t a bit of truth to that last sentence. Could it be that some of these letters get published just to show how inane (insane?) their arguments are?

  11. RogerE asks:

    Could it be that some of these letters get published just to show how inane (insane?) their arguments are?

    Who would do such a thing?