Creationist Wisdom #243: Two Theories

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Yuma Sun of Yuma, Arizona. The letter is titled Teach two theories of evolution. 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.

The letter-writer begins by referring to an earlier letter:

In a letter to the editor from Jules Ohrin-Greipp, he poses the question: “Is it indoctrination when schools insist on teaching science rather than religious myth?

Here’s a link to that earlier letter: Debate the facts rather than fears, which seems to have stunned today’s letter-writer. It appears that he’s never encountered such a thought before. He struggles to make sense of it, and says:

The only conclusion I can get from this question is that he believes evolution is a fact and the Bible is not fact.

Wow! What an idea! How could anyone think such a thing? Let’s read on:

Both evolution and the universe started by a creator are theories as no one that is alive today was around millions of years ago to witness the beginning of the universe.

Yes! As everyone knows, evolution is a theory about the origin of the universe, and so is Oogity Boogity! How can you decide between them? Were you there? The letter continues:

Science, over the past 50 to 100 years, has discovered more things pointing to the Bible’s account instead of evolution.

Proof of the bible has been piling up! What follows is the usual catalog of confusion that we always find in these letters. We’ll give you a quick summary in order to spare you the task of reading actual excerpts. Let’s see … ah yes, there’s the Big Bang; that’s certainly biblical. And then there’s the fact that science can’t explain the origin of life while the bible does. Of course you know that fossils don’t support Darwin, but the Cambrian explosion supports the bible. So there you are. Okay, moving along:

There are many other scientific discoveries pointing to the accuracy of Biblical accounts and causing scientists to say we don’t have an answer, but we will.

Right. Many other discoveries. Too many to list. Another excerpt:

It seems that from this information and a great deal more, that schools should teach that there are two theories about the start of the universe and its development to this point, one scientific and one according to the Bible. Science has not been able to prove that either theory is fact or not fact.

After that massive load, we are given the source of the letter-writer’s information:

My information in this letter came from a book by Lee Strobel entitled “The Case for a Creator.”

WowieLee Strobel. We haven’t seen that name mentioned for quite a while, although it shows up at the Discoveroids’ website (e.g.: Discovery Institute Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Darwinism at Knoxville Conference). It’s understandable that the Discoveroids would mention Strobel, as his book is all about intelligent design.

And now we come to the end of today’s letter:

If there are scientific facts proving that Strobel is wrong, I’d like to hear them.

From the few comments that are starting to appear in that newspaper after the letter, it would seem that no one can handle the challenge. Oogity Boogity is doing well in Yuma.

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #243: Two Theories

  1. Jack Hogan

    evolution is a theory about the origin of the universe

    Haven’t you heard? The creationists have discovered that evolutionary theory includes the Big Bang. Any scientific theory that does not also posit either a god(s) or an IDer(s) as the driving force behind it all, doing things we can never ever understand, is ipso facto a part of evolutionary theory and Darwinism and “Godless Science”.

  2. I have to admit I like the first comment to his letter. I’ve never seen a sarcastic use of photosynthesis as a foil against creationism.

  3. garystar1 says: “I have to admit I like the first comment to his letter.”

    I went back to look for more, and the comments are all gone. Maybe it’s just me.

  4. @SC: Just checked. I’m still seeing them. If it makes a difference, I’m using Firefox running on a Linux (Ubuntu) OS. The specific comment I mentioned was by “Edward Snook”.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    On that site you need to allow javascript for the site URL in order to see the comments. Check your browser to see if you have scripts turned off or a script utility is blocking until you give permission.

    Just looked at the site. There are only 7 comments, mostly from supporters, and not a single one of them mentions “Hitler” yet. Very disappointing.

  6. Ceteris Paribus says: “On that site you need to allow javascript for the site URL in order to see the comments.”

    That’s been enabled all along. I saw the comments originally. Then I didn’t. Suddenly I’m seeing them again. Weird.

  7. retiredsciguy

    SC: “That’s been enabled all along. I saw the comments originally. Then I didn’t. Suddenly I’m seeing them again. Weird.”

    Uh-oh! This sounds ominously like the predictions made in a sci-fi short story I remember reading as a lad in The SaturdayEvening Post. (This was back in the ’50s or early ’60s, long before we had integrated circuits, let alone the internet.) The gist of the story — the computers revolted against humans. They first figure a way to link up using the power grid, then strange things started to happen –traffic lights malfunctioning, etc. The end result, if I remember correctly, was the apocalyptic collapse of civilization.

    You have no choice, Curmy! In order to keep this cancer from spreading, you must destroy your computer now! But then, it’s probably already too late. It won’t let you read this message.

  8. retiredsciguy

    Maybe you can save your computer after all, Curmy. When I first clicked the link to the letter, no comments appeared. I then clicked the line that said “Agree or Disagree?” (or something to that effect) at the top of the letter, and the comments appeared. When I went back to the link, the comments were still there. It’s probably something about the Yuma Sun’s website, not your computer.

  9. retiredsciguy says: “Maybe you can save your computer after all, Curmy.”

    Too late! I destroyed it in order to save humanity from the revolt of the machines. I’m now posting using only my mutant Curmudgeon powers.

  10. retiredsciguy

    SC: “I’m now posting using only my mutant Curmudgeon powers.”

    So now you are one of them!! Now we know the real reason you’re hiding out in your C.I.T.A.D.E.L.

  11. Jack Hogan

    No problems seeing the comments here. Firefox 11 with adblock plus enabled, javascript enabled by default.

  12. There are still only seven comments, but six commenters. Only two of the six commenters agree with the writer.

    I had the same thing happen (comments disappeared), and had to click the agree or disagree link. Strange.

  13. Tomato Addict

    SC: “I’m now posting using only my mutant Curmudgeon powers.”

    So THAT explains it!

  14. “It seems that from this information and a great deal more, that schools should teach that there are two theories about the start of the universe and its development to this point, one scientific and one according to the Bible.”

    Well, at least the letter writer was nice enough to admit that the Biblical “theory” isn’t scientific. Say, you don’t suppose that might be why they don’t teach the other theory in science class, do you? Nah, it’s gotta be religious bigotry and rank fear of new ideas.

  15. aturingtest

    Aitch748: “Well, at least the letter writer was nice enough to admit that the Biblical “theory” isn’t scientific.”
    But he does say that “[t]here are many other scientific discoveries pointing to the accuracy of Biblical accounts” and appeals for “scientific facts proving that Strobel is wrong”- he thinks that Strobel is fully “scientific” and can only be rebutted by what he thinks is science. I guess this is what happens when you get your “science” from a lawyer. (I’ve read one of Strobel’s books- The Case For Christ. Utter crap.)
    I think these folks have confused answer for explanation. “Goddidit” (or SC’s “oogity-boogity!”) is an answer. Science is an explanation.

  16. A Creationist perpetual motion machine would smash a hundred industries and begin a brave new world of endless discoveries and boundless accomplishments on which they may claim biblical authority. The laurels of true genius. They should build one. What credibility they’d have!

  17. retiredsciguy

    I might be a bit slow on the uptake, but it just occurred to me that we should never let the DI or any letter writer get away with claiming that there are two theories of evolution. There is but onetheory of evolution based on evidence and observation (by which it qualifies as a scientific theory), and then there are various religious dogmas that attempt to explain creation that are not based on any evidence at all, and therefore are not theories. They don’t even qualify as hypotheses.

    It’s the same old story about repeating an untruth often enough and people will believe it’s true. Same goes for the DI claiming there are “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution. Teachers are always free to teach science in the classroom.