Creationist Wisdom #309: Evidence for Design

One of our clandestine operatives tipped us off to today’s letter-to-the-editor. Like the last one we wrote about, it appears in the Akron Beacon Journal of Akron, Ohio. It’s the third letter under this headline:Letters to the editor – March 18, and it’s titled “Flawed theory of evolution.”

Gasp! The theory is flawed! We’ll give you some 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:

In the March 13 letter “Science teachers teach science,” the writer suggests that the teaching of intelligent design is the teaching of religion masquerading as science.

He’s talking about the letter that appears here. It’s brief so we’ll quote the whole thing:

In advocating the teaching of religion in public schools, the writer of the March 7 letter “Objective and neutral” overlooks the simple fact that science teachers are hired to teach science, not religion. So-called “intelligent design” smacks of nothing but religion, albeit frequently masquerading as science. No matter how many times the federal courts correctly forbid the teaching of religious theories in public schools, a few zealots never learn.

That was enough to enrage today’s letter-writer. Here’s what he says:

On the contrary, intelligent design is a conclusion arrived at from the scientific evidence, as opposed to the theory of evolution, based upon presupposition and speculation, unsupported by even one proven transition form and refuted by the fossil record.

Lordy, lordy. Evolution is speculation. No evidence. No transitional fossils. Our professors lied to us! Let’s read on:

If a paleontologist happened upon Mount Rushmore, he could conclude that what appear to be identifiable faces is the result of erosion caused by wind and rain, or he could conclude that what he sees is the result of intelligent design.

Uh huh. Behe uses Mount Rushmore as an example of design. Not much controversy there. It’s exactly the same when we observe a colon or a kidney, right? The letter continues:

There are countless irreducibly complex structures and processes in the biological world, such as the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and DNA coding for protein, that scream design infinitely more than Mount Rushmore and which are so astronomically improbable as to be impossible to have resulted from chance.

Ooooooh! Irreducible complexity! Astronomically huge improbabilities! Wow — everything is a miracle! Here’s more:

If Darwinian evolution is such a sound and defensible scientific theory, it should be able to stand up to the counter evidence.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What counter evidence? The drooling incomprehension of an ignoramus? Moving along:

Why are the Darwinists so afraid to allow school children to hear the arguments for intelligent design? Do they have something to hide?

Yes. Yes! We’re afraid! Another excerpt:

Intelligent design does not suggest what or who is responsible for the design, only that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests design.

The evidence doesn’t merely suggest design, it does so overwhelmingly! Here’s the letter’s thundering climax:

However, we all know that the ultimate issue is the origin of life. Going from inanimate matter to Albert Einstein by mindless random processes is no less of a religious belief than a belief in intelligent design.

Well! There’s no way to argue with that. Nice letter, wasn’t it?

Copyright © 2013. 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 #309: Evidence for Design

  1. It seems obvious that the DI folks also have their clandestine operatives scattered far and wide, busily writing letters to the editor……

  2. Most anti-evolution letters-to-the-editor I have seen would not meet the approval of a Discoveroid. They contain many DI sound bites, but usually mangled, like Archie Bunker’s comical attempt to describe the phrase “one hand washed the other.” Letter writers are an interesting “transitional fossil” between clueless rank and file deniers and the scam artists who exploit them. Whenever someone parrots the “evolution takes more faith than…” nonsense, show them this.

    Note: Let me know if you can’t access the link, and I’ll copy it.

  3. Alex Shuffell

    If we do discover that some areas of nature have been designed what do we do with this information? The applications of evolutionary biology do not need to be repeated here, but I can’t see how Intelligent Design is useful outside of philosophy. First would be to see who created that part of nature, aliens capable of such feats would be considered to be the gods of every religion, but there is nothing to say we can talk to them. What of ID’s application, how could it help us?

  4. Yes Frank, I should have added a 🙂 to mine, since the comment was a take-off of SC’s operatives scattered far and wide. The letter writers indeed appear to have heard the DI’s talking points and then put into their own [mangled] version.

  5. Alex Shuffell asks: “What of ID’s application, how could it help us?”

    Isn’t it obvious? If, after lots of study, we conclude that Mt. Rushmore is designed, well then …

  6. When it comes to ID they love to trout out the eye thing. Well as a amateur science type even I can see (pun intended) that using the eye as an example is a better example of Idiot Designer! Because I can design a better eye that I have.

  7. Ceteris Paribus

    If ID is the source of all the kinds of life on the planet, then why wasn’t the Designer intelligent enough to stop before creating the IDiots?

  8. If one religion’s creation, sorry, Intelligent Design ‘theory’ is to be taught in public schools then they must all be taught. Xian one week, Hindu the next and so on. Or, keep it simple, “Each religion believes that their god created everything.”

  9. Mary L – good point. I teach a university level science and religion course and the first assignment is to research and compare a variety of creation stories from a range of cultures to include the scientific story. Most of the xian students accept that Genesis is a myth and not literal, but remain convinced that the god of Genesis is the one who did it. A few come to understand that the Genesis story sounds just as fantasmic as the story of Pangu, and that all cultures have, and indeed apparently need, an origins story. Your lesson plan would be a lot less complicated 🙂

  10. Douglas E says: “the first assignment is to research and compare a variety of creation stories from a range of cultures”

    That’s good. Your students will learn to revere the Olympian gods, as I do. But I also find the Japanese tale of Izanagi and Izanami to be a close contender.

  11. I am partial to the stories in which the gods get drunk and throw up all of creation!

  12. retiredsciguy

    Douglas E: I am partial to the stories in which the gods get drunk and throw up all of creation!

    You mean The Big Barf Theory?

  13. Yes, that’s the one; however, there is some controversy about the possibilityof multi-barfs.

  14. retiredsciguy says: “The Big Barf Theory”

    That’s the primordial ooze.

  15. So the pimordial booze leads to the primordial ooze?

  16. Whoops! “primordial” booze.