Creationist Wisdom #249: Unleashed Preacher

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (or maybe it’s a column) appears in the Arizona City Independent located in Arizona City, Arizona. . It’s titled Darwinism, Marxism and our present crisis, and it’s written by a preacher. 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. Here we go:

They both were born about 1810, both published at mid-century, and both died about 1890. Charles Darwin and Karl Marx posed a double whammy to Christianity for many years. Biological Science and Political Science were affected, and all society world-wide. It’s still happening.

Yeah, yeah. See Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Anyway, now we know what we’re dealing with. The letter (or column) continues:

Under Darwinism, which is atheistic, there is no God, no morals, no purpose in life, and no life after death, thus no accountability for one’s choices and actions.

Yippee! We can do anything and it doesn’t matter! Thank you, Darwin! Let’s read on:

Under Marxism [yeah, we know, so we’ll skip that]. Together, these two movements could be setting up society for a genocide worse than the holocausts just mentioned. With the radical Zero Population Growth Movement backing it, and Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood organization perpetrating it. Sanger, an atheist, promoted selective genetics and birth control.

Oh boy. This preacher doesn’t miss anything, does he? See Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. We continue:

Now add the global warming movement [might as well toss that in]. Neither Darwinism nor global warming is “settled science.” Ptolemy’s geocentric universe theory was “settled science” for fifteen centuries. Then came Copernicus in the 17th century and proved Ptolemy wrong. Now Copernicus’s theory is considered “settled science.” Many other examples can be given.

Yes, all science is wrong, all the time. Here’s more:

The teaching of evolution lies behind many of our society’s ills. Many college students have been brainwashed into believing a false view of science, and into thinking the Bible has been disproved. Creationist Dr. Ian Taylor writes, “When humans try to eliminate God, they have no reason to behave rationally. The tyranny of self interest dominates daily decisions. The survival of the fittest rules streets, alleyways, homes, businesses, and nations.”

This is neat — one creationist genius is quoting another! Moving along:

Some of the other destructive movements based on Darwinism are the animal rights movement, the abortion movement, the sexual revolution, the deterioration of family values, the onslaught on the U.S. Constitution, the revision of school texts to conform to politically correct evolutionist teachings, the anti Christian movement, Kevorkianism, racism, and genocides around the world. All of these movements consider human beings as just animals, without purpose, and without a need of accountability.

Kervorkian! That’s a new one! Here’s the end of it:

Darwin’s famous book, Origin of the Species, has more than those three words to its title. The entire title is Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. It is ridiculous that nature has a brain that can make choices, and the statement “Favored Races” is one of the basic causes for the racism in our society today.

Yea — one more lie, or rather, bit of misinformation We explained that book title in Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. We love this preacher! In one short letter, he did it all. The man has the brains of a kumquat.

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

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #249: Unleashed Preacher

  1. Are you sure you’re not being unfair to the kumquats of the world?

  2. This is one of those letters that as one begins to read it, various rebuttals come to mind, and a comment begins to frame itself. By the time one reaches the end of the letter, however, there are so many different grossly wrong statements and lies that one thinks… “oh, forget it.” It’s just too much to take in.

    In Texas we would say, “that thar preacher, why he’s dumber than a fence post.” Meanin’ no disrespect to fence posts, of course.

  3. NeonNoodle

    I propose a three-way debate between Pastor Jim, a fencepost and a cumquat. Or, barring that, maybe just a three-way.

  4. I must only conclude that the writer, should he “lose his faith” tomorrow, would go on a rampage of theft, assault, rape and murder…or at least that he’s afraid he would.

  5. Ellie says:

    I must only conclude that the writer, should he “lose his faith” tomorrow, would go on a rampage

    That won’t happen. He won’t lose his faith because it’s all he’s got.

  6. Ceteris Paribus

    The Preacher says: “The entire title is Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”

    But according to my copy of the book (150th Anniversary Edition, with special introduction by noted Darwinologist Ray Comfort), Darwin’s actual wording of his title begins as: “On the Origin of Species,…”

    The Preacher leaves out the beginning word “On”, which if left in place serves notice that Darwin was intending to provide a reasoned contribution to the intellectual, scientific, question at hand. On the contrary, the use of the word “On” would be completely out of place for the title of an authoritarian, definitive, unchallengeable story such as the Preacher’s “Book of Revelations”, also known by longer titles such as the “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine or the Apocalypse of John”.

    Also the Preacher insists on moving words around to make the title read “the Species”, rather than Darwin’s construction of “the Origin”. Here the Preacher is showing his true character as an obsessive spiciest, with a completely different world view than would a scientist.

    It would be a lot easier to have some respect for creationists such as the Preacher if they only could take the time to first consider the actual wording and the questions at hand before offering their scriptural proof texts answers for their presupposed truths.

  7. Under Darwinism, which is atheistic, there is no God, no morals, no purpose in life, and no life after death, thus no accountability for one’s choices and actions.

    I am continually amazed by statements like this. I cannot begin to fathom how “no God” equates to “no purpose” and “no accountability”. Claiming a monopoly on all things good is an arrogance I just can’t tolerate. Especially when your so-called “holy book” overflows with abominations.

  8. retiredsciguy

    In science, when presented with new evidence that definitely contradicts current theory, we revise the theory.

    In religion, when presented with evidence that definitely contradicts dogma, the religionists (for lack of a better word) indict the evidence and malign the presenters (or worse).

    They dare not let contradictory evidence shake their belief for fear of eternal condemnation.

  9. Christine Janis,

    Yeah, well I’m just like Doctor Kevorkian when it comes to these creationists: No f*cking patients left.

  10. RSG said:

    In religion, when presented with evidence that definitely contradicts dogma, the religionists (for lack of a better word) indict the evidence and malign the presenters (or worse).

    There’s a phrase made famous by (then Lt. Col) Ollie North. It was, “Admit nothing, deny everything, make counteraccusations.” In other words “admit nothing” (Evolution? What evolution?), “deny everything” (there’s no evidence, it’s all wrong, essentially anything little sc says), “make counteraccusations” (Darwinism leads to facism and Hitler!). Only now those in the anti-science crowd have added the addendum, which is “Demand proof, discredit witnessess, blame society.” “Demand proof” (Show me the fossil record! Prove to me that radiometric dating works!), “discredit witnesses” (All evolution-believing scientists are atheists!), and finally “blame society” (It’s not my fault that, even though I claim to be a religious, morally-upstanding person, I still constantly bear false witness against my neighbor. They made me do it.)

  11. aturingtest

    Poolio: ‘I cannot begin to fathom how “no God” equates to “no purpose” and “no accountability”.’
    You gotta understand, though… these are folks for whom that is literally true- as SC says above “it’s all [they’ve] got.”** They simply cannot see why what is true for them shouldn’t be true for everybody – I suspect a failure of imagination or empathy.

    **To be honest, though- if all religion fell tomorrow, I’m pretty sure, as real people in a real world, they’d find a way to cope without its strictures. They’d have to, wouldn’t they?

  12. CJ wrote> “Yeah, well I’m just like Doctor Kevorkian …”

    It’s a good thing I wasn’t drinking anything at the moment, or that joke might have killed me! 🙂

  13. retiredsciguy

    @Ceteris Paribus: Your tongue was firmly in cheek when you wrote “noted Darwinologist Ray Comfort”, right?

    At any rate, you are correct. Darwin’s title is “On the Origin of Species,…”, at least according to my copy (not Comfort’s abridged version) and a quick Google search. The placement of the word “On” makes a huge difference, doesn’t it?

  14. Christine Janis,

    “The placement of the word “On” makes a huge difference, doesn’t it?”

    So does the inclusion of the word “the”

  15. @Ceteris Paribus
    I’m indulging in some wishful thinking that you might write a rebuttal letter to the to AZ newspaper pointing out preacher’s manipulations oh, er mistakes, as you did here. Anyone with half a brain would conclude that either he is stupid and wrote a letter so sloppy that he got the title of the referent book wrong, oooooor that he is cunning and knows that his argument requires falsification and deceit (as well as confidence that the readers wouldn’t be wise to his deception). Neither case looks good for a preacher to whom a congregation, and often a community, turns for knowledge and guidance – and a lack of ethics in the morality biz, well…. I think he put it very neatly as “the tyranny of self interest.”

  16. I’m always amazed how the anti-science thugs deflect back the exact same arguments or accusations directed at them. It’s like a witless person who mimics the questioner in lieu of an answer.