Creationist Wisdom #209: Apples and Oranges

Today’s letter-to-the-editor is Evolution vs. creationism: Neither disproves other. It appears in the Your Houston News, some kind of community newspaper in Conroe, Texas — that’s near Houston. 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:

I would like to chime in on the creationism vs. evolution theory controversy. My reason for this is due to vast amount of ignorance commonly displayed by both sides. Upfront, I must admit that I agree with Darwin. During the time of the demise of his days he rejected his own theory, as do I. That being said lets us take a look at the argument betwixt the two.

Ah yes — Darwin rejected his theory “during the time of the demise of his days.” This is the kind of letter we like. It starts crazy and then it gets crazier. You’ll see — but only if you have the courage to stay with us:

The Theory of Evolution concerns only a method, and an unproven one at that. Creationism centralizes more on who created rather than the how. This then is an issue of comparing apples to oranges. With the latter, a time span of six days is mentioned but shortly after that, in the Bible, God proclaims that a day is as a thousand years and vs. a versa [sic]. So time the time span between creating and evolution is a nonissue.

Six days could have been six thousand years. No problem! Let’s read on:

While many seem to think God waved his magic wand and poof, man appeared or that God merely spoke and all was created by his voice, and this may be. There is a scientific theory much stronger than that of evolution, to support the idea of Gods spoken word being the method of creation and that theory states that all matter is composed of sound waves.

Aaaargh!! The “sound wave” theory! We continue:

Look at that as the atoms of which we are all made, they have a tiny amount of matter in them but they spin so fast that together they, we, appear to be solid.

Aaaargh!! The “spin-solidity” theory. Here’s more:

Matter is proven to be made of waves, but are they sound waves? And even if they are, does this mean that God did not utilize at least some form of evolution? That is in essence one theory; maybe it is, maybe not. Then again, he could have spoke, saying, “Fish, evolve into man over the next million years.” There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God definitely did not use evolution as a tool of creation. Again, maybe, maybe not.

Aaaargh!! The “maybe, maybe not” theory. Moving along:

The ancient Chaldeans wrote in the oldest writings existent that three persons from the 12th planet, Nibiru, created man by merging their genetic makeup with those of existing species here on earth. The writers of those tablets state that the source of information they have came from a lost civilization. While this can be argued that this is not scientific proof, on the other hand, it is most definitely a historical theory of the human creation.

Aaaargh!! The “Chaldean Nibiru” theory. Teach the controversy! Here’s another excerpt:

Evolution only concerns itself with the creation of animals and mankind. It completely ignores the issues of the creation of the planets, the sun, the orbits, time and the atoms of which we are all made. If evolution were 100 percent proven, it still would not disprove God nor would it disprove the creationist theory.

Hey — part of that paragraph makes sense. Or — having come this far — have we lost our mind? It’s too late to stop. On with the article:

The “Big Bang” theory assumes the pre-existence of particles in order to have the bang to begin with. It does not explain the source of those particles. The existence and influence of God is neither proven nor disproven by any of the theories.

Aaaargh!! The “pre-existence of particles” theory. And now we come to the end:

We should be able to conclude that the argument between these theories is at best one of comparing apples to oranges and that both could be right, wrong or a modified version of either or both. How is not an argument against who. Either way, it is not a one or the other issue. Evolution does not disprove creationism and creationism does not disprove evolution.

Is your head spinning, dear reader? Ours is. But maybe that’s because it’s made of sound waves and it’s trying to appear solid. It’s the Chaldean way.

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

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #209: Apples and Oranges

  1. This is the most entertaining post of the year!

  2. Looks like yet another example of the Op-Ed page editors deciding what letters to publish based on humor value rather than insightfulness.

    “…time span of six days is mentioned but shortly after that, in the Bible, God proclaims that a day is as a thousand years…”

    Why yes, only 18 books and 79 psalms separate Genesis 1 from the day:thousand year reference. Hmmm…he must be using a similar 1:3E5 translation for “shortly after that.”

  3. It’s not Time Cube crazy; not in the same league at all, but definitely the same sport.

  4. Hey, SC! Did you see who the very first commenter was? None other than Herman Cummings! That ol’ boy gets around, doesn’t he?

  5. Pete Moulton says: “That ol’ boy gets around, doesn’t he?”

    Yes, Herman and I seem to move in the same circles.

  6. Aaaargh! “Talk like a pirate” day was the 19th….not the 21st. But I can understand the sentiment.

    Give the guy points, though, for working the planet Nibiru into a letter about creationism vs. evolution. That’s pretty original.

  7. This guy went off the rails on a craaaazzzy train, probably a long time ago. I wonder if he votes with that brain. For that matter, I wonder what he does for a living. Maybe he’s a currently unemployed electrician mowing lawns to help his wife make ends meet. That would make him the Bizzaro-world me. Definitely agree with Matt- most entertaining post of the year (but the year ain’t over).