Creationist Wisdom #225: Darwin’s General Theory

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Republic of Columbus, Indiana. The letter is titled Biblical creationism not unscientific. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

When someone mentions biblical creationism with Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can only assume they are referring to the general theory of evolution developed from Darwin’s studies and conclusions.

Ah yes, the “general theory.” It’s much more robust than the pipsqueaking special theory. We continue:

After all, while Darwin’s theory of adaptation, evolution, within a family is on par with Einstein’s theory of relativity (that is backed up by scientific facts), such cannot be said of the general theory of evolution.

Okay, the letter-writer is talking about what creationists call micro- and macro-evolution. He’s doing the ol’ micro-macro mambo, but using what he imagines to be classier terminology. That’s silly enough to be entertaining, so we’ll read on:

When this distinction is made, biblical creationism is no more assertion than the general theory of evolution. Both seek to explain something that no man was there to witness in view of the evidence before us.

No witnesses? By golly — that’s amazing! We continue:

The reality is that when compared to what we know from the scientific realm, the Bible comes much closer to explaining what we see than amoeba-to-man evolution.

Only a fool would deny it! Here’s more:

The flood described in Genesis 6-9 in Noah’s day does a much better job of explaining the strange order of geological strata and the sudden explosion of life in the fossil record than modern evolutionary geology.

Yes, much better! Moving along:

Many other examples are available for those really interested. The point is that neither biblical creationism nor the general theory of evolution is more or less scientific than the other. Both are an attempt to explain what happened long ago based on the evidence we see today.

“Both are an attempt”? Yes, and these are a sentence, but let’s not quibble now. Here’s the conclusion:

Neither of them can be “proved” based simply on what we observe in the world around us. That being the case, what is wrong with presenting both sides of the coin using a scientific approach?

So there you are. Darwin’s general theory is equal to Genesis. Teach them both.

Copyright © 2012. 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 #225: Darwin’s General Theory

  1. Alas, the letter writer did not even address the issue in the title. I suppose that the headline was not written by the author. Too bad, I was looking forward to being shown how Creationism works as a scientific theory.

  2. Both are an attempt to explain what happened long ago based on the evidence we see today.

    And here I thought creationism was an attempt to explain the evidence we see today according to what was written long ago.

  3. The letter exemplifies why scientists do not waste time arguing with layman, or wise men with fools. The background information you’d have to provide the writer before he could understand an informed discussion would cover several disciplines and take hours, if not days.

  4. Those kissing cousins Ignorance and Superstition are alive and well in Indiana!

  5. Oh, those kissin’ cousins are alive and well everywhere. No need to single out Indiana. And don’t forget Uncle Stupidity. He tends to make grand appearances at such functions. The one thing that does appear to be alive and well in Indiana as opposed to the rest of the union is people who like writing letters to the editor, especially those who proclaim their love of all things creationist. That includes this one, and this one, and this one, and this editorial.
    All these op-ed pieces are great for one reason. It makes it easier to understand the magnitude of the problem, which in the end will help to create a solution. Or solutions. This problem will require a multi-pronged approach to solve.

  6. The Columbus, Indiana website doesn’t accept comments. It’s too bad. I wanted to write a few things about the Bible thumping science denier.

  7. The Letter writer: The flood described in Genesis 6-9 in Noah’s day does a much better job of explaining the strange order of geological strata and the sudden explosion of life in the fossil record than modern evolutionary geology.

    The (tongue-in-cheek) Curmudgeon: Yes, much better!

    If it’s that much better why haven’t the Discoveroids made it a cornerstone of their “theory”? They can’t be afraid that it “reeks of God,” because it’s actually easier to explain Flood “geology” without reference to a Creator/designer than it is to explain “irreducible” or “specified” complexity. Plus Flood “geology” contains many testable “what happened when” hypotheses, making it much more scientific than Discoveroid “science.” Alas, most Discoveroids are “old Earth, old life.” And they either accept common descent or approach it with the same “don’t ask, don’t tell” that they usually apply to the “when” questions.”

    So who will break the news to the hapless letter writer?