Creationist Wisdom #160: Circumcision

We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Believe God’s Word, which appears in the Sun Journal of Lewiston, Maine. We’ll copy most of today’s letter, but we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. We’ll also add some bold for emphasis, plus our usual Curmudgeonly commentary between paragraphs. Here we go:

In a recent debate a statement was made that, “There’s no scientific evidence to support creationism.” But science does support creationism, at least to open-minded created beings who know that we’re accountable to a supreme being.

That’s a peculiar, finicky kind of science — very choosy about whom it persuades. It must be nice to be among the chosen. Let’s read on:

Personally, I don’t think that coming from monkey-boy is anything to brag about.

We’ll let that pass without comment. Let’s continue:

Evolutionists hold that the earth is very old, and that each strata of rock represents a slice of time that, when taken together, represents millions of years. How then, can polystrate fossils, such as petrified trees of a particular age, be found standing vertically through two or three layers of rock that are supposedly millions of years apart in age? Maybe from a global flood which, besides in the Bible, is a story told by more than 500 cultures worldwide? Did the resulting worldwide layers of silt and mud petrify very rapidly?

That’s one of the oldest creationist clunkers. At least a generation before Darwin, geologists had given up on the recent global flood. See the Talk.Origins Index to Creationist Claims. This is specifically on point: “Polystrate” Tree Fossils. Here’s more from today’s letter:

What about the abundance of fossils of dinosaur footprints interwoven with human footprints? Can rock reconstitute back into mud for Alley Oop to trudge through millions of years later, and then re-petrify with the original dinosaur footprints perfectly preserved?

Lordy, lordy. That one is so wretched it’s even on the Answers in Genesis list of Arguments that should never be used. Also, see The Texas Dinosaur/”Man Track” Controversy. Moving along:

Conversely, how long do evolutionists think science takes to catch up with God’s Word?

Huh? What? Never mind; let’s see another excerpt:

A baby’s level of prothrombin, used in the production of vitamin K, a clotting factor, peaks at the eighth day of life. Yet God told Abraham, “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generation … (Genesis 17:12) thousands of years ago.

We’ve posted so many of these letters that it’s almost impossible now to find any original or at least entertaining creationist arguments, but that paragraph has made our continuing search worthwhile. And here’s how the letter ends:

Just three examples. ‘Nuff said.

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

There you are, dear reader. It’s not too late to repent.

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #160: Circumcision

  1. Holy crap! What has happened to New England where most people have the good sense to keep their personal opinions to them selves. Especially when they are totally crackpot opinions?

  2. But science does support creationism, at least to open-minded created beings who know that we’re accountable to a supreme being.

    Why yes, to those open-minded enough to cling to their a priori assumptions/prejudices, creationism is supported by science.

    People close-minded enough not to include their biases in their judgment of these matters are just out of luck.

    It’s just a tradition with the incredibly open-minded–twisting the definitions of words to mean the opposite of their normal meanings. The IDiots are, of course, “Darwin skeptics,” not like those of us who worship him. That gives them every right to attack the long-abandoned mistakes and biases of Darwin, rather than deal with the theory as we know and accept it.

  3. Ah, another graduate of the Denyse O’Leary School Of Writing Good Like What I Done.

  4. It has to be a first – bringing circumcision into an essay on creationism. The ultimate non-sequitor. He gets points for originality.

  5. I discovered creationism two decades ago. Before that, I naively assumed that nobody believed in a literal Poof! man! woman! talking snake! Anyway, in those 20 years, I have never before heard or read that particular claim. Congrats to the letter writer, although I’m sure it’s probably not original with him. I’ll have to seek and see what I find.

  6. You have never before encountered the claim about circumcision on the eight day? It was popularized, but probably not first proposed, by M.R. DeHaan’s The Chemistry of the Blood half a century ago. I remember reading it as a young adult and wondering about the claim: given the variation in rates at which humans mature (e.g. how soon babies walk, how soon teens reach puberty, etc.) and the fact that some babies are born prematurely and a few after their due date, it did not seem possible that prothrombin could invariably peak eight days after birth; even having that happen more often than not seemed a stretch. In point of fact, on average, blood-clotting products tend to peak somewhat after that date. Nor is it obvious that one would need supernatural revelation to arrive at the conclusion that if you’re going to circumcise your boy babies, you shouldn’t do it right out of the womb: trial and error alone might have taught them that you get better results if you wait, say, a week and a day.

  7. Maine Operative

    It must be the water or run-off from LePage’s Marden discount stores that are killing the letter-writer’s brain cells. Of course, he’s really just parroting the old arguments without any cerebral effort being involved–obviously an original thought would be far too advanced for this chap.

  8. Gabriel Hanna

    Fundamentalist Muslims do this all the time; they claim that all of modern science is anticipated in the Koran and they have some pretty creative interpretations.

    Funny enough, the scientific verses in the Koran don’t ever lead to discoveries; invariably the discovery is made first and then the verse which predicted it is found.

  9. Gabriel Hanna

    Incidentally, the Torah has very good advice about not sh*tting where you eat. The problem is you have to sort it out from the irrelevant advice, like how to diagnose leprosy in HOUSES; and the evil advice, like stoning people.

  10. Gabriel Hanna says: “Incidentally, the Torah has very good advice …”

    The Roman army knew more about hygienic practices than can be learned in scripture. Except for foot-washing. Lots of foot washing.

  11. “The Roman army knew more about hygienic practices than can be learned in scripture. ”

    Correct as always there Mr C…. one of the Roman army “standing orders” fragments found at one of the forts on Hardrians Wall has orders that soldiers must wash their armpits, dangly bits and feet every day when going off duty….and clean their caligula (hobnail sandal boots).

    2000 years and nothing much has changed eh?

  12. Steven Thompson: “trial and error alone might have taught them that you get better results if you wait, say, a week and a day.” Indeed, you might even say that doing it on the eighth day EVOLVED in a strictly Darwinian way – babies were less likely to die then. And then they said God said to do it then, to screw it in place. (But they also have numerological “reasons” for doing it then, 8=completion and the like.)

    “Nor is it obvious that one would need supernatural revelation to arrive at the conclusion that if you’re going to circumcise your boy babies, you shouldn’t do it right out of the womb: ” You’d think so, but that is just what US doctors got in the habit of doing, with babies even being circumcised befor they were fully delivered – back in the days before informed (parental) consent.