Creationist Wisdom #170: Just a Belief

We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Evolution is a belief, not a science and certainly not fact, which appears in the Shreveport Times of Shreveport, Louisiana. Newspapers are getting touchy about bloggers copying their contents, so we’ll give you only a few excerpts from this letter. As we usually do, we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of added bold font for emphasis:

The common theory of evolution states that there was matter and energy, already in existence, that exploded 15 billion years ago (the big bang) and has expanded into the present state of the universe.

It takes a world-class genius to summarize the whole theory of evolution so succinctly. Let’s read on:

Even Charles Darwin acknowledged the inadequacy of evolution when he wrote, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” (Darwin, 1872).

Hey — Darwin rejected his own theory! Who knew?

In case you’re stunned and reeling from the letter-writer’s revelation, we’ve devoted an entire post to that particular creationist “quote.” See Evolution of the Eye.

But today we won’t stop with merely putting that quote in context. We have been so deeply moved by the spirit of quote-mining that we now offer some similar scholarship of our own, which we hope today’s letter-writer will accept in the true spirit of creationist fellowship. This is from the King James Version of the Good Book:

Thou shalt … commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14). Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep (Exodus 22:30).

See? Anyone can play the quote-mining game — and it’s fun! We continue now with more of the letter-writer’s wisdom:

Everyone has heard the term “missing link” so many times that we tend to forget what it really says to us. Fossils that could show the evolution of any one original kind of life into any one new kind of life are — missing!

Gasp! The missing link is missing! The letter-writer has penetrated to the very core of the global Darwinist conspiracy and has exposed our greatest secret. We’re doomed!

There are more creationist goodies in today’s letter, and we know you don’t want to miss any of them. Click over to the Shreveport Times to enjoy the full experience. We’ll leave you with this one last excerpt:

[Evolution] is a belief. Anyone can believe anything they want, but that doesn’t make it true.

Wise words indeed!

Copyright © 2011. 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 #170: Just a Belief

  1. Yep, between any two fossils, no matter how similar, lies a missing link. The more fossils are found, the more missing links are created. As long as a missing link remains, evolution is disproved! It’s so logical.

    I think I’ll go put some more food in the dinosaur feeder out back. We have a few jays and cardinals this morning…

  2. @ed.
    You could trap a few cardinals and feed them to the dinosaur?
    The best way to trap a cardinal is to use altar boys…

    Please don’t edit this post – that was FUNNY… if I do say so myself..even if it is in bad taste..

  3. Some of the comments were pretty good. I did groan when I got to the infamous eye quote. Do they never get tired of Lying For God?

    Congrats on the great Bible quote mining. Usually I use, “Judas…went out and hanged himself.” Matt. 27:5 “Go, and do thou likewise…” Luke 10:37

    However, I may steal yours.

  4. Ellie says: “I may steal yours.”

    That’s fine. I’ve also used “Go, and do thou likewise…” but in connection with a quote about Lot and his daughters. I like today’s example because both excerpts are from Exodus, so the combo is more authoritative.

  5. @anon – I was thinking that the cardinals and jays were themselves examples of dinosaurs. But then again, your cardinals could be thought of as dinosaurs too…

  6. The writer seems to know that his claims are, at the least, questionable:

    Evolution requires these “missing link” fossils to be real for the theory to have any proof from the fossils. All arguing aside, there really aren’t any that have ever been found. Darwin followers have even quit trying to find the “missing links” for land plants and for all of the many kinds of insects.

    Plenty of transitionals have been found, of course, he simply denies it. Plants included.

    For especially poorly fossilizing organisms, like insects, it is tough to find much that is transitional. The idea that anyone’s given up on trying to find such is nonsense. Doing nothing is ID/creationism’s tactic. But we know that the odds of finding exciting evolutionary stages in insects are much poorer than the odds of finding such stages in vertebrates.

    It’s useful for them to ignore the reasons why insects don’t give us much in the way of fossil evidence of evolution, certainly, and to pretend that it’s a grave problem. We continue, however, to do research with fruit flies, which show core homologies with us that weren’t suspected in the early 20th century.

  7. Love the quote mining. It’s either NCSE or Talk.Origins who maintains a list of mined quotes by creationists. Highly informative.

  8. On the other hand, insects are preserved pretty well in amber. Jerry Coyne’s book WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE has a description of an early ant found in 1967 with primitive wasp characteristics, wasps being the predicted ancestral group. Bees are also thought to have descended from wasps, and an early bee was found a few years ago also with wasp characteristics.
    These little guys look pretty transitional to me. (Sound of goalposts being moved. “Well, bees and ants are just members of the wasp kind, so it isn’t really evolution!”)

  9. Could it be that these idiots read all those stupid things told by creationist quacks, buy it, then think “oh gosh, nobody knows this, I better write a letter to the editor!” and then send a letter displaying their “newly acquired knowledge” to a newspaper?

    I can’t understand how somebody would read a creationist pamphlet and go write a letter to the editor unless they think pamphlets are reliable scientific information. Maybe they hear it from the pulpit? What? What is it? How?

    Darn, I should not even try to understand. They are idiots. That’s all there is to it.

  10. His use of the phrase “the law of science” sparked my curiosity, as well as his quotation marks around his description of said law. What’s the source that he is quoting? I haven’t found that out yet, but I have discovered that a good portion of this letter is lifted largely verbatim from a Yahoo Answers page.

    copied passages highlighted:

    original link

  11. Quote mining Exodus – LOL!!!

  12. So it looks like the Yahoo answers page I mention above is just a cut and paste from this site:

    And then I found that the rest of this letter to the editor is lifted from an article by a Dr. G. Charles Jackson

    Not one single original sentence in the whole letter! Is it lazy or the text version of a mash-up?