Creationist Wisdom #280: The Debate

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Courier-News of Aurora, Illinois. It’s titled Still much to debate about theory 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. Okay, here we go:

To claim that creationism is a matter of faith, while evolution is sound science, is to ignore the numerous questions left insufficiently answered or sidestepped by modern evolutionary theory:

That’s great — the letter-writer has determined that creationism isn’t faith and evolution isn’t science because evolution has unanswered questions. Here are some of those questions:

How can evolution account for the tremendous amount of intricacy in the universe?

Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:

Where is the evidence that new genetic information can be randomly added to an organism’s genetic code?

Aaaargh!! We’ve been posting about the “evolution can’t produce new information” issue — see Is Convergent Evolution Explainable?, which discusses a good example of how it happens, and which links to two others. We continue with the letter-writer’s profound questions:

Where are the innumerable transitional forms that Darwin himself argued would be a prerequisite to the adoption of his theory?

Aaaargh!! See List of transitional fossils. Here’s more:

When the creationist raises such questions or dares to posit his own theory, he is silenced and censored. After all, to quote Walter Heffron, who commented on this matter earlier (Letters, Oct. 17): “Creationism is based on religious faith, which is not debatable.”

Here’s a link to that earlier letter: Creationism a matter of faith, so nothing to debate. The title sums it up. Moving along with today’s letter:

Creationists are deeply concerned with discovering the truth of human origins through scientific method.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another excerpt:

Merely because the creationist comes to an alternative conclusion does not mean that his views should be disqualified from discussion. [Skipping an Aristotle quote.] If we truly desire the truth, should we not allow intellectual honest debate over a controversy as important as this?

Aaaargh!! Until the creationists have actual, verifiable evidence for their Oogity Boogity, there can’t be a debate. On with the letter:

Why, then, are evolutionists so intent upon silencing the opposition? Do they have something to hide? [Aaaargh!!] Or do they refuse to accept the creationist’s argument because of their personal preferences rather than scientific objections?

What personal preference does the letter-writer have in mind? You’ve already guessed it:

Perhaps many evolutionists would agree with Dr. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy and law and New York University: “I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

That’s the letter-writer’s explosive revelation of the deep secret that evolution is trying to hide? Well, now we come to the end:

As much as I respect Heffron’s opinion [he’s the earlier letter-writer], I must say: The debate is far from over.

How can the debate be “far from over” when it can’t even get started? As the earlier letter said, there’s nothing to debate.

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #280: The Debate

  1. The letter-to-editor writer contends

    Merely because the creationist comes to an alternative conclusion does not mean that his views should be disqualified from discussion.

    True. Holding an alternative view is not, by itself, grounds for disqualification from discussion.

    Creationists are disqualified from scientific discussion on the grounds of the total absence of science from the oogity-boogity which is the sole (invisible) support for their empirically-unwarrented conclusions.

  2. Don’t forget there ability to lie about everything else with a stright face.

  3. “Maybe something, somehow is wrong with evolution” doesn’t count as an alternative view. Nor does “a being (or beings) which is able to do anything might have done this”.
    Why, then, are evolutionists so intent upon silencing the opposition? Do they have something to hide?
    The people doing the hiding are the creationists and ID advocates. There are plenty of places that they have available to tell us what they think happened, when, where, how, and why.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Part of what they do is look at individual evidence and discredit it or twist it to point to creation. At that level you might call it science.

    But once you get to the macro Theory-with-a-capital-T, they simply can’t make it work. They can fit all the animals on the ark, but they can’t explain how they then populated the earth, why there are ancient trees, or how all the fossils are in progressive layers. Then they come up with wild-ass crazy stuff to fill the gaps … or simply goddidit.

  5. Will these people EVER learn that this is not a debate? That science is not a debate? That what we “believe in” are data? To quote Curmy “Aaaargh!!

  6. I see our friend Herman posted a comment to the editorial which had nothing to do with the letter. I kinda like him, he’s consistantly crazy.

  7. Lewis Thomasonn

    If you look at the letters that spout this anti-evolution tirades and read the comments from people in the area, most replies disagree with the writer so maybe there isn’t as much crazy in the world as we think.

  8. @ Lewis. I think the number may become overly inflated due to groups like this blog. Also those who understand enough about evolution to discuss the topic well, generally have strong feelings about it.
    Most of those in the strong opposition are the religious extremists and the moderates on both sides stay quite or don’t care enough to have an opinion or read the article.

    That being said I’m a fairly pesimistic person on this matter.

  9. Wow! A five “Arrrrgh!” column. Don’t let’em get under your skin, SC. Wait. You did throw in a “BWAHAHAHAHA!”, which cancels out one of the “Arrrgh!”s. That makes it a three “Arrrrgh!” column.
    Never mind.

  10. A simple 2-letter, 1-syllable answer will suffice, but did any of those 280+ “wisdoms” ever acknowledge the existence of this?