Creationist Wisdom #330: Proof of God

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Current of Galloway Township, New Jersey. The letter is titled Science attests to God’s reality. 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:

This is in response to a letter in the May 9 edition from a writer who groused that we should get rid of all our “superstitions” and “baloney beliefs” – which is how he defined belief in God.

We can’t find that earlier letter, but it doesn’t matter. What follows are five numbered paragraphs presenting the letter-writer’s evidence for the existence of God. Hey — he’s got five proofs? This man is a modern day Thomas Aquinas. We realize that this isn’t, strictly speaking, a letter about creationism, but he mentions the Big Bang and DNA, so it’s close. Okay, let’s begin reading the five scientific proofs:

1) Scientific research has proved that the universe had a definite beginning. Science has also proved that every effect must have a cause greater than itself. Thus, something greater than the universe that pre-existed it must have caused it to exist.

We’re confused. Newton’s third law of motion speaks of equal and opposite reactions. We’d like a little more information about the proof that causes must be greater than their effects, but we’re not going to get it here. Let’s read on:

2) Science has proved that the simple cannot create the complex, something impersonal cannot generate something personal, and something nonrational cannot generate something rational. Intelligence must also be generated by previously existing intelligence. Thus, the universe must have been created by something incredibly complex, personal, rational and intelligent.

We’re not familiar with those propositions either. But if he’s got the proof, then his conclusion makes sense. The letter continues:

3) Science has proved that life can only come from previously existing life (“Life begets life”).

That’s probably a reference to the bogus Law of Biogenesis attributed to Pasteur. See Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Here’s more:

4) The genes and DNA of living things contain a huge amount of nonphysical information that determines their every physical detail. Such information could only be generated by a supremely intelligent, rational, ordered mind.

Ah yes, the spiritual component of DNA. Here comes scientific proof number 5:

5) The testimony of the 66 separate historical books of the Bible attest to God’s reality and his past interaction with the human race. This includes the life, teachings, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, testified to by the 27 books in the New Testament written by contemporary eyewitnesses who all personally knew him. These men all went to their death as martyrs, insisting that what they said about Jesus was the truth.

Paul probably never met Jesus, and we’re not at all certain how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John died, but we claim no expertise in such matters. Here’s how the letter ends:

What we really need to get rid of is the kind of willful ignorance and religious bigotry demonstrated by the writer.

Amen to that! Oh — he probably means the earlier letter-writer. Anyway, dear reader, now you have your scientific proof.

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

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #330: Proof of God

  1. What we really need to get rid of is the kind of willful ignorance and religious bigotry demonstrated by the writer.

    Kirk Hastings

    Actually I thought he was referring to himself.

  2. Me too! Brilliant!!

  3. The writer may be referring to this opinion piece, Superstition Hurts Us All . It is apparent that the writer has learned nothing about science. His understanding of causation, let alone, complexity seems to be nil. It saddens me to see such a completely indoctrinated mind regurgitating nonsensical boilerplate and catch-phrase mantras, without having any idea what they mean. Unlike the article to which he is referring, his name is published. Hopefully someone in his community will suggest he read any number of books that correctly explain the principles of physics, cosmology, and causation from a Christian perspective. It will at least start him off in the right direction without seriously challenging his core beliefs and might get him to actually start thinking about the issues expressed in the article.

  4. Well, if there truly was scientific proof of God’s existence, there would no longer be any need for faith — would there.

  5. If I remember correctly, the Apostle John, who gets credit for the Gospel of John (whether he wrote it is questionable), was not a martyr.
    I also think Luke was one of Paul’s disciples, and so never met JC, either.
    And not one of the supposed authors has any solos in Jesus Christ Superstar, a FACT the letter writer to failed to mention.

  6. @retiredsciguy – You beat me to it this time ;=)
    It appears as though the term “faith” is only used by politicians these days.

  7. Dean says:

    It appears as though the term “faith” is only used by politicians these days.

    No. Creationists still say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in the tooth fairy.

  8. The whole truth

    “…something nonrational cannot generate something rational…”

    He’s right about that when it’s applied to him and other irrational god pushers.

  9. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    Kirk Hastings is part of, or at least has participated in, the Evidence 4 Faith
    apologetics podcast put out by Keith Kendrex a medical doctor. Kirk has also released a vanity press uhhh “book” called What Is Truth?: A Handbook for Separating Fact from Fiction in a Propaganda-Filled World.

    I’ve been familiar with Kirk for some time. The original incarnation of the podcast Irreligiosophy did sort of a review of an episode of the E4F podcast (in their usual sarcastic style) which prompted an online Skype’d “debate” between the two podcasts. At that time Kirk was active on the E4F podcast and was a participant. The old Irreligiosophy episodes are no longer online but I do have them if anyone cares.

    Along comes Irreligiosophy 2.0, the resurrection, and they then do a multi-episode review of Kirk’s “book” which can be found on the podcasts website. Irreligiosophy’s Chuck Morrison also posted a review of Kirk’s book on Amazon which caused Kirk to go on quite the diatribe in the comments. I only mention most of this because those reviews ultimately took Kirk’s butthurt to all new levels of butthurt and was the source of Kirk’s email sock-puppetry sent to Irreligiosophy and false accusations that Irreligiosophy was actively conspiring with listeners to trash his book in Amazon reviews. Not satisfied with making these false accusations in the comments to reviews, in desperation Kirk gives himself a 5 star review in order to make a public service announcement with the accusations. This 5 star review was eventually deleted by Amazon.

    Eventually, the accumulated butthurt caused the creation of this facebook farce…. The Question Irreligiosophy Project.

    To state the obvious, critical thinking is not this man’s strong suit.

  10. Agree with all above. This guy is scientifically illiterate!! All of his points are essentially BS.

  11. Retired Prof

    “Science has proved that the simple cannot create the complex. . .”

    That’s why it’s impossible for simple water molecules to assemble themselves into complex snowflakes when they condense out of the air.

    Wait. That can’t be right. What’s wrong here?

  12. Interesting that the original letter writer makes no explicit reference to religion, but the follow-up letter writer assumes that religion is the core issue and equates superstition with his religion. So be it, though there are many forms of superstition that humans are guilty of, e.g., black cats and walking under ladders are based on religion, right?

  13. Our Latter-Day Aquinas boldly asserts:

    Intelligence must also be generated by previously existing intelligence. Thus, the universe must have been created by something incredibly complex, personal, rational and intelligent.

    By which ‘logic’, one is compelled to ask, “Whence came the previously existing intelligence that created the Intelligent designer?”

    Once again, it’s turtles all the way down….

  14. anevilmeme.

    He knows nothing about science or the scientific method. Even sadder this person who wears their Christianity on their sleeve knows very little about the bible.

  15. Newton’s third law of motion speaks of equal and opposite reactions. We’d like a little more information about the proof that causes must be greater than their effects, but we’re not going to get it here.

    Gee, wouldn’t it terrify the fundies to learn that Newton’s Third rule also applies in religion? Like this:

    “Yeah, every time they baptize a heathen, Satan gets a Christian. Every time God saves a Christian life through prayer, He takes the life of some Christian who richly deserves to live. Gotta balance out that Spread Sheet of the universe, you know.”

    My only fear is that were this hoax to be put out there, some millions of fundies would believe it true, and decide that the best way to react is to shoot selected people . . . (“guns is the answer” to all difficult questions, in some fundy circles).

  16. Rikki,

    thanks for the background info on Hastings.

  17. Test your faith. Read entire link. You may never believe in God again.