Creationist Wisdom #337: Evolution Is Despicable

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (or column, or something) appears at the website Canada Free Press, published in Toronto. That site styles itself as “a conservative free press.” We’ve seen them described as the Canadian equivalent of WorldNetDaily.

That website provided the material for our Creationist Wisdom #167: The Final Climax, with which we had planned to end our “Creationist Wisdom” series because we thought we could never find anything to surpass it. But you persuaded us to persevere.

What we found there today is titled The Ubiquitous Lie of Chance, Human Reptile Descent. It’s by Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., a name we’ve come across before. He authored a book which was highly praised by Don McLeroy, the creationist dentist who until recently dominated the Texas State Board of Education. We wrote about his infatuation with Johnson in Texas: Creationism and Cosmology?

Because Johnson is recommended by McLeroy, you know what to expect. His article is somewhat long, and it’s loaded with what appears to be several mined quotes. We’ll give you only a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

Darwin “demonstrated” nothing but his own ability to wildly speculate. Charles Darwin was a Scripture-denying materialist philosopher and circular logician, not a scientist. Sir Francis Darwin, as editor of his father’s Life and Letters, wrote of his father’s propensity for speculation that “it was as though he were charged with a theorizing power ready to flow into any channel on the slightest disturbance.” Darwin’s elder brother Erasmus wrote to Charles after reading his copy of The Origin of Species: “The a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.”

Darwin did have brother named Erasmus. They also had a grandfather with the same name. We weren’t going to bother checking Johnson’s quotes, but we had to look for this one. We found the letter here. This is the full paragraph from which Johnson’s quote is taken. The part Johnson quoted is shown in red, and a rather important omission is shown in bold:

For myself I really think it is the most interesting book I ever read, & can only compare it to the first knowledge of chemistry, getting into a new world or rather behind the scenes. To me the geographical distribution I mean the relation of islands to continents is the most convincing of the proofs, & the relation of the oldest forms to the existing species. I dare say I dont feel enough the absence of varieties, but then I dont in the least know if every thing now living were fossilized whether the palæontologists could distinguish them. In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts wont fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling.

Johnson ignores the mention of the geographical distribution of species and other evidence. He also ignores the contents of Darwin’s book. Instead, he takes that reference to a priori reasoning and runs wild with it:

Facts are required to “demonstrate” a scientific truth. Darwin had no facts, and he knew it. In The Origin of Species, published in 1859, Darwin presented no actual evidence or facts that demonstrated the truth or validity of evolution, or what he called descent with modification.

Darwin had no facts and no evidence. He had nothing. His own brother said so. It’s amazing what a little bit of quote-mining can do. Okay, we’re off to a good start. We’re skipping a few paragraphs with more mined quotes, and then we come to this:

Darwin’s a priori reasoning was not a step forward for science but a great leap backwards. Theologians in Medieval Europe, also using the a priori method, reasoned from one false proposition to another, until they had built up a great tower of pseudo-science, tempered with false religious mortar, until the great Roger Bacon, and 300 years later, Francis Bacon, with his Novum Organum (New Instrument, observation and experiment) taught people to learn by inductive facts rather than by traditional deduction.

Darwin was just a Dark Ages thinker — a fool! Let’s read on:

Today, The atheist hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) embraces wholeheartedly the Dark Age a priori method of Aristotle and Darwin … . The fundamental pseudo-scientific a priori premise of the NAS is this: There is no Creator/Designer. Their deductive conclusion from this arbitrary religious premise is: Therefore, atheist materialist molecules-to-man evolution — what I prefer to call chance human reptile descent — must be true. That is the sum of their a priori pseudo-science. Inductive observation and experiment are utterly absent from their system. The NAS has become an organization of atheist ideologues, not scientists searching for the truth in nature.

They’re all fools! Fortunately, Johnson is wise enough to see through their nonsense. No wonder Don McLeroy admired him. We continue:

[W]hile “natural selection” sounds impressive to the unlearned and ignorant, it is actually nothing more than a distracting and indefinable figure of speech falsely presented by the NAS to the media and the public as the ultimate be-all and do-all of chance human reptile descent. Nature, however, lacking a mind and a will, has no capacity whatsoever to “select” anything.

Egad, our professors lied to us! Natural selection is a worthless concept! Skipping a few paragraphs, we find this:

The discovery of DNA should have put an immediate end to Darwinist speculation. Why? Because DNA is encoded information, and encoded information as well as information itself always has an intelligent source. Thus, DNA is prima facie proof of intelligent design.

How could we have been so blind? Hey — what’s coming up next is the best part:

Darwinist evolution is the greatest, most despicable, and most often repeated lie of modern times. The members of the NAS hierarchy know that their atheist/materialist standpoint conflicts irreconcilably with belief in the God of the Scriptures, and that their pseudo-science is a direct attack on our nation’s Judeo-Christian tradition, the very foundation of our political life.

Good, huh? Skipping some bible stuff, we come to an argument we haven’t seen before:

We cannot be endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights if we do not have a Creator. The atheist/materialist pseudo-science of the NAS leads to one political principle only: might makes right. We thus have no inherent God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We get what the ruling government deigns to give us, and we had better be thankful for that. Where else should we expect the insistence upon chance human reptile descent to lead?

Evolution dooms us to tyranny. One final excerpt:

Charles Darwin a “towering genius”? Please!

So there you are, dear reader. Now that the idiocy of evolution has been explained, don’t you feel foolish?

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

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #337: Evolution Is Despicable

  1. Perfect. Evolution must be a lie otherwise The Declaration is false. Next up, plate tectonics renders Northwest Ordinance null and void. Sure it’s kinda north, but is it really all that west?

  2. anevilmeme

    This may be the worst quote mining I’ve ever seen, the quote miner is a scumbag and a moral vampire.

  3. Realist1948

    “DNA is encoded information, and encoded information as well as information itself always has an intelligent source.”

    Hmm… if there is snow on the ground, and then it rains, and then the rain turns to freezing rain, a vertical sample of the snow / ice / frozen crust yields the “encoded information” telling the history of the precipitation. Similar “encoded information” is found in various layers of sediments and sedimentary rocks. Does Johnson (no relation to me, I hope) believe that all sequences of precipitation, and all sequences of sedimentation are due to an “intelligent source?”

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Forcefully eloquent, yet dumb as a doorknob. The basic premise here is there is no science behind Darwin’s book, and subsequent science is just somehow irrelevant clatter? WTF. I’m left with the only argument I could possibly get by this dullard, which is why did God leave so many clues to evolution, and since you didn’t observe them, how do you know goddidit?

    And way to win the conservatives with “MERICA!!!” ending. Just like the gun nuts. This guy pisses me off.

  5. The whole truth

    Johnson obviously believes that he was ‘specially created in God’s image” and is vastly superior to all everything else. Just one of the things he doesn’t realize is that he is mostly a conglomeration of viruses, fungi, and bacteria. Apparently ‘God’ is too.

  6. You can go to and download Johnson’s entire book Sowing Atheism, where we learn that the National Academy of Science is an “atheist nest” full of deceitful “weasels” (since they make the outrageous claim that available evidence supports evolution).As it turns out, they are even more despicable than weasels. I just have to share this gem from Chapter 1:

    When my daughter, Beth, reviewed my first draft of the manuscript for this book, she pointed out that the NAS book writers are worse than weasels. “They are more like termites,” she said, “because with termites, you don’t see the damage, you don’t notice how thoroughly the truth has been undermined until it’s too late.”

    The evo-atheists have fabricated what they call an “evolutionary tree.” They maintain that any two living species today can be traced back to a common ancestor on their tree. According to their speculation therefore, a weasel and a termite can be traced back to the same ancestor. This is the fossil the geniuses at the NAS should be out in the field digging for. They are its first cousins.

  7. We cannot be endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights if we do not have a Creator. etc.

    Once again, I point out that this is an argument against evolutionary biology which is more appropriately an argument against reproductive biology. Or worse.

    We, as individuals, have rights. Who are those who believe that collectives (like “kinds”) have rights, not individuals?

  8. Gawd the creator endowed Americans with certain inalienable rights according to some parchment. The rest of the world doesn’t operate by the American constitution.

    I’ll stick to evolution when I’m on the sane side of the US border, thanks.

  9. I just discovered that Robert Bowie Johnson jr. has his very own well-earned entry in “Encyclopedia of American Loons”:

  10. Encyclopedia of American Loons is great fun, but I wish they had an index!

  11. Indeed. But here, at least, is the entry for another guy we’ve heard about:

  12. Thanks for the link to his book HK. It is a quick read very much like Kent Hovind’s doctoral thesis and goes down easy like a twinkie (with no nutritional value). Possibly the most head scratching part is the end where he tries to cast various figures from Genesis into Greek mythology. Baffling.

  13. Yeah, Troy, I read the whole thing in a single afternoon as well. It is, if nothing else, amusing. And yes, the Genesis-in-Greek-art part is … interesting. Especially coming from a man who has spent chapter upon chapter raging against “evo-atheists” who indulge in wild speculation with no real evidence.

    He tries to prove that some obscure Greek god (Nereus) is the Greek equivalent of Noah, or Noah deified. Not one word about Deucalion, the actual Deluge hero in Greek mythology! Some would say that is a huge omission, but according to Johnson jr., the only reason his fantastic new insight on Greek myths hasn’t caught on is that the academic world is made up of Bible-hating evo-atheists. Of course.

    At his best, Johnson jr. is somewhat eloquent, I’ll give him that. But his brand of “logic” is … well, peculiar. Studying such writings does at least alert one to the fact that some people out there live in reality-bubbles very different from one’s own.

    Here is the whole weird thing again, if others are curious:

  14. There is Deucalion, but also obvious is that Eve has more parallels with Pandora, who incidentally was human, than with Hera. Athena’s snake he mentioned was sort of her adopted son from an attempted rape by Hephaestus, not some sort of bizarre attempt by Athena to revive the wisdom of the snake.

  15. Techreseller

    OK if the writer of this drivel is smart. I am dumb. Really bottom of the barrel dumb.