Creationist Wisdom #174: They Have Evidence

We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Little evidence exists for naturalism, which appears in an anonymous newspaper, the contents of which we found at a website called Although we’d like to mention the paper’s name, they don’t provide it. Their contact information suggests that they’re located in Johnson City, Tennessee, and the website gives a weather report for that area.

Anyway, we’ll give you a few choice excerpts from the letter they published, and we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

Some liberal and, or atheist colleges celebrate Darwin’s birthday this month.

What is strange is some liberal Christian churches join them and say Christians can embrace evolution. Christians should only embrace micro-evolution (evolution within the species or minor adaptation). Micro-evolution was supported by the Bible long before science.

Lordy, lordy — it’s micro-macro again. See Common Creationist Claims Confuted. What remains to be seen is if today’s letter is an example of micro- or macro-ignorance. Let’s read on:

The controversial aspects of evolution are macro-evolution and naturalism. Macro-evolution (Darwinian evolution) is on a large scale between different species (ape evolving to human). Naturalism is the doctrine that there isn’t a creator, nature is all there is.

Confusing evolution (and all of science) with philosophical naturalism is another common blunder, one which we’ve discussed here: Bring Me An Angel Detector!

Now that we’ve easily disposed of the letter-writer’s “controversial aspects” of evolution, let’s continue to see what else he’s got for us:

Professor Phillip Johnson in his books disagrees with Christians who see the compatibility of evolution and belief in God. Johnson said they made a complete blunder and misunderstand the theory.

We’ll omit what the letter-writer says about Johnson’s claims, because we already know about them — and him. See Philip E. Johnson: Godfather of Intelligent Design.

Hey, wait until you see what’s coming next. It’s a listing of the long-awaited evidence for creationism, and that makes this letter well worth keeping. Here it comes:

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

Impressed? Sure you are. The evidence for creationism is presented right there, which makes this letter one that could be used to introduce a week-long series of lessons on The Controversy. Not only that, but as a bonus for staying with us to the end, the letter-writer concludes with an argument we’ve never seen before:

When there’s a disaster and people are killed and property destroyed, insurance companies call it “an act of God.” Perhaps insurance companies have been reading and believing the Bible more then some churches!

So there you are, dear reader. The entire case for creationism has been given to you in this one letter. If you persist in your “Darwinist” ways, don’t be surprised if you’re afflicted by an act of God.

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

5 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #174: They Have Evidence

  1. So it looks like the letter writer accepts “naturalism” (a pretty useless concept, but still the self-consistent manner in which most US scientists understand science) for micro-evolution.

    What’s the idea there, micro-naturalism?

    And please, creationists (including IDiots), do everything you can to get out of jury duty. I don’t want you accepting the word of the accused that the stolen goods were miraculously transported and placed in their possession. What objection could you possibly have to such a claim, as you’re willing to disbelieve the known regularities that Christians have normally understood to be God’s laws, in order to accept a total abrogation of those laws?

    If you were consistent, you’d have no reason to doubt the miracle claims of a thief or murderer.

  2. Does the writer believe that the Cambrian “explosion” was the creation of “kinds” in Genesis? If so, was it all micro evolution since then, since the bible supported micro evolution long before science? (my bible doesn’t have that chapter, but maybe I have the abridged version) Does the writer realize that those Cambrian critters were all very small sea creatures?

  3. I know that people can be quite inventive when doing a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that micro-evolution was supported by the Bible is something which I’d never heard of before.

  4. Does the writer believe that the Cambrian “explosion” was the creation of “kinds” in Genesis?

    Not to mention that the Cambrian explosion took 60 million years. That’s a lot longer than six days.

  5. Baraminology to the rescue!