Creationist Wisdom #195: No Mermaids

Today’s letter-to-the-editor, titled Real problem with Darwin isn’t about beginnings but about dead end, appears at the website TCPalm. That site hosts several newspapers of the Scrips chain that are located in Florida’s “Treasure Coast” area. In this case we’re guessing it’s the St. Lucie News-Tribune. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and as we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

The problem with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, other than just being a theory, is simply this: The fittest doesn’t always survive.

Hey, the letter-writer has found a serious flaw in the theory — besides being “just a theory” — the “fittest” aren’t impervious to harm. Who knew? But that’s not all the letter-writer has to say. We’re just getting started:

Natural selection is not that selective, either; it may not even be natural. There are no fossil records of a missing link, at least none that anthropologists can agree on with any amount of certitude to substantiate the transformational claim so vital to the naturalist’s revolutionary idea that is at the core of Darwin’s radical belief.

No missing link? Wow — we never heard that before. This is a great letter! Let’s read on:

There have been numerous attempts to find or fabricate such a hybrid by those who choose to follow in the faulty footsteps of their foolhardy master whose legacy was to be remembered, and perhaps even loved, in the inspiring words, old blasphemer himself, as “the man who murdered God.”

That’s a very garbled, probably fifth-hand recollection of a line from the movie, Creation, in which Thomas Huxley says to Darwin: “You’ve killed god, sir.” Here’s one more excerpt from this fascinating letter:

There are just no such things as monkey-men or mermaids (except maybe in our own selective imagination), no matter how inviting, intriguing, or logical they may sound or appear; and that we are no more likely to come across one of these fantastic creatures any more than we are would ever come face to face with a griffin, a sphinx, the fabled faun or fated unicorn, furry fish, or even the elusive elephant-bird for that matter; at least not genetically, and definitely not by natural selection.

No mermaids? That settles it then — evolution is a failed theory! It’s not too late, dear reader, to change your evil ways.

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 #195: No Mermaids

  1. God shmod! I want my monkey-man.

  2. The military has been working for years on a Pig-man project.

  3. There are no fossil records of a missing link

    That’s because when one is found, it isn’t missing anymore.

  4. Another great post!

    This is off topic I guess, and I don’t know if you take requests, but this is another person trash talking evolution, so maybe take a look. It might be something you want to write about. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-im-wrong-it-proves-im-right.html

  5. Thanks, maxff, but except for a few well-known creationist sites that I visit for amusement, I usually ignore creationist blogs. Most of my stuff is based on what I find in the press, or from university news sources.

  6. This reminds me of a creationist I used to debate with way back on the old CompuServe discussion forums. He once asked, in all seriousness:

    Will the Japanese pearl diver get a hole in the back of her head because it will better adapt her to her environment? That is the argument of evolution. Whales jumped back into the sea and decided to get a hole because the ones that did had better survival over the ones that would have to breath through the mouth.

    Nice.

  7. Troy Britain says: “This reminds me of a creationist I used to debate with”

    Why would you debate with someone like that?

  8. I may be confused, because it seems like this letter writer is claiming that the elephant bird doesn’t (didn’t, really) exist. This seems strange, seeing as the elephant bird is a real creature, that was native to madagascar and went extinct in the 17th century. Either that or this person is trying to claim that no missing link between birds and elephants has been found, because after all, birds must have evolved from elephants…

  9. Why would you debate with someone like that?

    First of all this was like 10 years ago, I generally don’t bother looking for people on this guys level to argue with anymore (though sometimes they find me). These days I generally reserve my ire for the “big time” professional bull$h*ters (DI, ICR, AiG etc.)

    As for why, well, there are several reasons. 1) For the benefit of the few honestly misinformed fence-sitters in the audience. 2) Once in a blue moon you might change someones mind. 3) Debating people (in print/online) furthers my own knowledge when I research the many and varied subjects that evolution denial touches on. 4) I have difficulty letting bull$h*t go unanswered and to be honest I enjoy arguing a little.

    I would have thought that you have similar motivations…

  10. Troy Britain says: “I would have thought that you have similar motivations…”

    No, not for a long time. These days I want nothing to do with those people. Oh, sorry your comment got snared in the profanity filters.

  11. …it seems like this letter writer is claiming that the elephant bird doesn’t (didn’t, really) exist. This seems strange, seeing as the elephant bird is a real creature, that was native to madagascar and went extinct in the 17th century…

    Very strange, because an elephant bird appears at the end of Horton Hatches the Egg – probably the last book the letter writer actually read that didn’t have staples.

  12. Ah, I’ll try and remember that next time.