Creationist Wisdom #319: Why Are Stars Round?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the San Angelo Standard-Times of San Angelo, Texas. The letter is titled Endless questions about evolution turn Big Bang theory into big bust. 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:

After reading the following, you will see why it is stupid and illiterate to think that evolution should be part of any test for high school graduation, anymore than creation by an invisible creator, God. Evolution is an unproven theory that is still not taken for an absolute truth even by those scientists who profess to be evolutionists.

The letter-writer should have ended that paragraph with the word “illiterate.” Stay with us, you’ll understand. He continues:

If evolution had started the way scientists claim, then how is it possible for them to predict coming events with over 90 percent accuracy unless all things were created on a master’s plan and timetable?

Did you understand that? Neither did we. Let’s read on:

It’s a fact that some people, including astronomers and others in the “scientific fields,” believe in the Big Bang theory that something came from nothingness. This theory alludes to the fact that out in the “void of space” there was absolutely nothing.

Did you like the way he put “scientific fields” in scare quotes? Anyway, the next few paragraphs are like a pre-school child’s coloring-book account of the origin of the universe — the home-school version, of course. We’ll skip most of it — it’s too silly even for one of these letters — but his Big Bang description ends with this:

On one of these chunks of debris (later to be called Earth) there happened to somehow generate a sea of slime where, hundreds of millions of years ago, a one-celled speck of protoplasm spontaneously came into being (a living thing) in this void. Then this speck self-generated and multiplied, finally separating into all sorts of abnormal creatures. These creatures then evolved, by natural selection, into the higher animates [sic] and vertebrates, including humankind, both male and female.

So we’re descended from “a sea of slime” that produced “all sorts of abnormal creatures” that evolved into us. Okay, we continue:

The Big Bang sounds plausible because everything out there is moving around just as if they had been thrown there, like the ripples on a lake from a stone, with one exception: These ripples would have kept moving in one outward direction, but astronomy has proved the things in the universe are going in hundreds of different directions.

Good point! It would be a great point if it weren’t for — cough, cough — gravity. The next part is our favorite:

Have you ever seen a glass bowl or dry mud ball drop and break, or the results of an explosion? None of the pieces formed are round or uniform in size. Yet the evolutionists claim that this is the way the universe came into existence. So I ask: Why are all the planets and stars round instead of odd-shaped and ragged?

We love it when we come across an original argument! Well, dear reader — why are the planets and stars round? Admit it — you’re stumped! Here’s another argument we haven’t seen before:

Evolution teaches that man evolved from the ape family, yet it is impossible for humanoids, male or female, to breed with any anthropoid, male or female.

[…]

If all things evolved from something else, why is it impossible for dogs and cats to breed, pigs with sheep, horses with cows or bull gorillas with human women?

We love this letter! But wait — there’s more: In between those last excerpts there was this:

Here is another unanswered question: If evolution is the act of slowly turning one thing into that or another, where are all the hundreds of thousands of fossil skeletons that are 50-50 connecting forms of evolution, the missing links that would prove the theory of evolution is even a tiny bit true?

A letter like this wouldn’t be complete without the claim that there are no transitional fossils. And he’s right! Well, except for this well-known List of transitional fossils.

The letter ends with four mined quotes. We won’t bother with them, but you can if you like. We’re done. Great letter!

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

22 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #319: Why Are Stars Round?

  1. This reminds me of Anne Elk explaining her theory concerning Brontosaurs.

  2. I love the commenter who asked how the genders keep up with each other!!

  3. They always have to mention slime, don’t they?

  4. MaryL says: “They always have to mention slime, don’t they?”

    I, for one, am proud of my slime ancestry.

  5. That would be a good slogan: Proud of my slime ancestry!

  6. Well 75% of Mira variables that can be imaged are not spherically symmetric. Not to mention all the binary stars that are consuming one another as ribbons of material are sucked from one to the other. Jupiter and Saturn rotate so fast they have noticeably flattened poles as well as all the asteroids (which are really just small planets) smaller than Ceres that are not round.
    While some related species can interbreed the offspring often are sterile resulting in a certain amount of evolutionary feedback that tends to create reproductive barriers.

  7. The letter writer clearly belongs to the class he’s described: an “abnormal creature.” I still find it incredible that the letters actually make it to print.

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    The Texas writer asks “Why Are Stars Round?”
    The biblical answer would be that stars are round so religious people can easily distinguish them from the earth, which of course is square, having exactly four corners as clearly stated in Isaiah 11:12.

    But please don’t mention to the Texas writer that stars are not only round, they are also pretty much spherical. It would only lead to more angst in his next letter to the editor.

  9. So I ask: Why are all the planets and stars round instead of odd-shaped and ragged?

    Because that’s the minimum energy configuration.

  10. You can find some really ignorant people out there and I must admire your stomach’s fortitude at being able to read it day after day; or do you just take lots of fluids and carry a large bucket?

  11. L.Long says: “I must admire your stomach’s fortitude at being able to read it day after day”

    I must have offended the gods, and this is how they punish me.

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Must have been a Category 1 offense. The gods just gave Sisyphus and Prometheus a little slap on the wrist.

  13. Is this a Poe? Please tell me this is a Poe.

    What the hell does he think stars are made of?

  14. Christians, 33 AD: Earth is flat. Proof of intelligent design.

    Christians, 2013: Earth is round. Proof of intelligent design.

    Progress… of a sort.

  15. Why do newspapers print inane BS like this? I mean apart from the unintentional humor.

  16. Ceteris Paribus

    Pagan [Eratosthenes, Greek], ~240 B.C.E: Makes measurements and concludes Earth is not circular, but a sphere. Calculates the circumference at the equator correct to within an error of about half a percent of the modern value. Proof of rationality and science.

    Progress… interrupted by Christians running amuck burning down libraries and academies.

  17. “I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable.” – Pooh-Bah

  18. I think we have Issac Newton to blame for round stars, planets, and moons. If a body is massive enough, the force of gravity will shape it into a spherical body. You will note that many of the small moons and asteroids in the solar system are not round, because they are not massive enough. As Troy indicated above, other forces can cause spherical bodies to flatten to some degree.

  19. Christine Janis

    Curmie, quoting the letter writer “If evolution had started the way scientists claim, then how is it possible for them to predict coming events with over 90 percent accuracy unless all things were created on a master’s plan and timetable?”
    Did you understand that? Neither did we.

    Reading the original letter, I think he’s referring to climate predictions for AGW.

    Also: Re the various quotes at the end of the letter: This was a new one on me

    ‘Professor Lock of Cambridge said, “Selection, whether natural or artificial, can have no power in creating anything new.”’

    So I tried to look up this “professor Lock” (having been both an undergraduate and a postdoc at Cambridge, with continuing ties there, I’d never heard of such a chap).

    A google search brought up a dozen quotations from creationist sites, and then I eventually found this one:

    Church of England, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain) – 1897
    Two papers were then read by Professor Lock and Principal Drury ‘ on the … be a similar gathering at Cambridge about the same time in the summer of 1897.

    A little before my time.

  20. Christine Janis says: “A little before my time.”

    Ah yes, Professor Lock. I knew him well. Actually, he was right. Selection doesn’t literally create anything new. That’s what mutations do.

  21. Why the snide swipe at home schooling? We home-schooled our daughter and she’d have no problem explaining general relativity to you. She can tell you how DNA replicates, explain punctuated equilibrium (and give you Dennett’s counterarguments), and why magnetism and electricity are related.

    Her age-peers in public school can tell you that global warming is caused by bad corporations and Republicans or something like that, and will cause our cities to be flooded in ten years. Darwin has something to do with birds and tortoises, but it doesn’t matter, he’s an old dead guy and not diverse.

  22. Mel, I think the point is that many home schoolers these days do so because they don’t want their kids exposed to non-creationist ideas. Whereas in the past people preferred to teach their kids at home because they wanted to increase the scope of the education, many folks today are looking to do the opposite in accordance with creationist beliefs.