Creationist Wisdom #181: Swamp Creatures

We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Nothing found to support naturalism , which appears in the Cumberland Times-News, the daily newspaper of Cumberland, Maryland. We’ll give you a few excerpts from this letter, and we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

— “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life “ is a widely accepted book used as the premise for a paradigm in our modern day educational system.

The title sounds much too racist to be given credibility, although its prominence in education is foundational! (Ironic isn’t it?) Not only is the author a racist, he was a sexist (men are superior), a eugenicist, a psychotic, an agnostic, a believer in the religion of purposelessness, loved killing animals and was a plagiarizer.

If the letter-writer had stopped his “analysis” after judging a book and its author solely on an archaic subtitle, we could charitably conclude that the letter-writer is merely an ignoramus. He obviously never read Darwin’s book with that subtitle, because it says nothing about human evolution or human races. We’ve discussed — and debunked — that nonsensical blather about Darwin’s subtitle here: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin.

But the letter-writer goes far beyond that common bit of nonsense. He throws in so many other untruths that we have no alternative. We must conclude that his letter isn’t merely an expression of ignorance. Let’s read on:

The truth is paleontologists have not uncovered a single transitional fossil to support naturalism. Evidence shows life suddenly appeared. Yet this unproved theory of evolution is the biggest falsehood of our time. The Holy Bible says (2Thes 2:11) “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” Could Darwin’s Theory of Evolution be God’s delusion?

There certainly something delusional going on here. We continue:

Ever wonder why our world is in a mess? People have no respect for life, liberty or property. Have you noticed what little regard they have for themselves? Why should people care for themselves or others when people believe they are creatures evolved from a swamp?

Yes, that was crazy, but we’ve learned to make the most of such things — it looks fine as the title for this post. We’re skipping maybe half of today’s letter, but our last except tells you where the letter-writer is going with all this:

What if they were very special people created by an almighty being? What if this creator loved them? What if they didn’t crawl out of a swamp? What if they can trace their ancestry to the same man and woman? What if happenstance has nothing to do with their predicament but sin has all to do with the situation they face. What if this creator provided a way out of their predicament. What if the Holy Bible is true? Wow, imagine the paradigm change.

This is a good place to wrap it up. What have we learned? Only this: Creationism is in full flower in Maryland.

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

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #181: Swamp Creatures

  1. Speaking as a Marylander, creationsim may be in full-flower, but it’s considered a weed patch, not a main part of the garden.

  2. Gary says: “Speaking as a Marylander …”

    We know how you guys speak: “My granddaddy didn’t evolve from no swamp!”

  3. Here is something that DID crawl out of a swamp! My great LOLaCreationist contest! There are 56 LOLcats, Hotdogs and (Ken)Hambones to rate.

  4. We know how you guys speak: “My granddaddy didn’t evolve from no swamp!”

    Not really. A true Marylander (and by that, I mean a Bawlamorean or the equivalent) would say, “Chris’ hon, ma grandaddy dint evolve fum no swayump.” It’s a very distinctive accent, which my wife tells me I revert to when I’m very tired or have been drinking.
    (UMBC, ’77)

  5. I like how agnostic was thrown in the middle of all the insults. Is very “Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking”.

  6. @Sy: Well said. The only difference I would make is that we in the areas south of Bawlmer would say that that was a “Bawlmoron” not a “Bawlmorean”. Oh, and don’t forget to subtract a syllable from the emergency vehicle names (e.g. it’s not an “am-bu-lance”, it’s an “am-blance”; it’s not a “fire” engine, it’s a “far enjun”.) as well as pronounce all of your pronouns with the letter “d” (dem, dese, dose). To wit,

    Chris’ hon, ma grandaddy dint evolve fum no swayump. Now let’s git us some of dem Old Bay crabs over at the far house.

  7. @ Reinard

    You have to remember to certain fanatics, agnostic is as serious a flaw in a person as the fore-mentioned insults.

  8. techreseller

    Noone mentioned how Marylanders from the east part of the state (including Baltimore) say Maryland. Murrlan. 25 years ago I was at an Orioles game sitting in the outfield and was talking to the guy next to me. I asked him where he was from. He said Ballmer Murrlan. After the third time I said where?, he said right here, this place. I finally figured out what he was saying. That was my introduction to East Marylandese. West Maryland sounds like a mix of West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania. Could not be more different. I am from the proud state of Virginia. We have at least 5 distinct accents not counting the no accent Northern Virginia.

  9. techreseller says: “Noone mentioned …”

    Noone? You post that, right after your rant about a Swedish university’s confusion over “loose” and “lose”?