Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Mining Gazette of Houghton, Michigan (population 7,708) in the northwestern portion of that state’s Upper Peninsula. It’s a follow-up to one in that newspaper that we wrote about a few weeks ago: Creationist Wisdom #307: Evolution Is Un-American. That was a veritable symphony of bogus quotes.
The title of the latest letter is Theory of evolution obviously atheistic. 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:
Larry Korpi’s Feb. 14 letter was criticized for quoting Julian Huxley and Arthur Keith admitting that atheism influenced their beliefs in evolution. Two letters claimed there is no proof those evolutionists made those comments.
Right. We discussed all that in our earlier post. Today’s letter-writer isn’t persuaded by the debunking. Creationists never are. He says:
Similar to the statement by Julian Huxley is this from Aldous Huxley’s “Confession of a Professed Atheist.”
Great tactic! If one Huxley’s quote is a phoney, then quote his brother. Here’s that quote:
I Had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none … For myself, as … for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was … an instrument of liberation … from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality … (that) interfered with our sexual freedom.
Wow — not merely one ellipsis, but five of them. That’s always a clue. We found that quote at the ICR website, in an article by old Henry Morris, the godfather of all quote-miners. That same “quote” appears at a lot of creationist websites, but they never link to a source and we can’t find the full text on line to verify it. We’ll let it go. Even if the quote is accurate — and we suspect it’s not — what difference does it make? Let’s read on:
The theory of evolution is not totally scientific but is so obviously atheistic it is amazing some people deny that it is.
Two errors in one short sentence! The scientific status of the theory of evolution is beyond question in the rational world, and as for its atheistic implications — hey, that’s also true (in the same perverted sense) of the theory that germs cause disease. After all, if disease is caused by infection and not by a supernatural agency, then who could deny the atheistic nature of the germ theory — or any other scientific theory? They all deal with natural causes, so they’re all atheistic, right? It would make more sense, however, to ask what kind of mind would make such an assertion. The letter continues:
Mr. Korpi was also criticized for quoting this statement by a physicist names Millikan: “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove.” That wasn’t considered valid because Mr. Millikan was a physicist, not an evolutionary biologist, and he said it in 1925. Physicists can’t understand biology? As for that “ancient” 1925 date, Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published in 1859.
Aaaargh!! Millikan’s statement was an accurate quote but what he said he was wrong. It’s goofy to quote an erroneous statement regardless of when it was made. And yes, Darwin’s work is older, but it’s not wrong — regardless of anyone’s misinformed statements to the contrary, whenever such statements are made. Here’s the end of the brilliant letter:
The theory of evolution is a creation myth by atheists who misinterpret what fossils signify. Their atheism prevents them from accepting this fact: Those fossils could just as easily be evidence of creation eras during which God created a variety of living things over long periods of time, the six “days” (actually eras) of Genesis.
Yes, fossils could be evidence of divine creation, which for some reason always occurred in the same sequence predicted by the theory of evolution. Everything could be evidence of divine creation, but then everything would be beyond our understanding, which is neither desirable nor consistent with our ability to deal with the forces of nature. Hey — at least the letter-writer isn’t a six-day creationist. But he’s a creationist nevertheless. Big time.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.