Creationist Wisdom #348: Coconut Sized Heads

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — two letters, actually — appear in the Cyprus Mail of Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus. For our American readers who may be geographically challenged, that’s an island nation in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Today’s two letters were both written in response to one by Richard Dickenson which appeared in that newspaper a few days ago: Religion is Darwinism. It’s an anti-religious rant, but a fun read if you like that sort of thing, and it seems that Dickenson stirred things up on the island.

The first of today’s responses is titled Darwinism is itself a religion. It’s written by Father Nichalas, described as: “Priest of the Greek Orthodox Church of America, residing in Cyprus.” Here are a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis:

[Dickenson] states that religions in general follow the theories of Darwinian Evolution. … In fact the article seems to be more of a polemical treatise written by the adherent of one religion who seeks to attack the beliefs of another religion.

You know where this is going, don’t you? Here’s more:

This is because Darwin’s theories on evolution and the origins of life being caused by natural selection have in fact become a religion for many people. Darwin’s theory is in fact a theory, it is not a fact.

Hey — two goodies in one paragraph: (1) evolution is a religion; and (2) it’s only a theory. Father Nichalas has a firm grip on things. Let’s read on:

When people such as this author dogmatically hold on to Darwin’s theories without having any scientific proof to back them up, meaning repeatable experiments, they show their true colors. They are themselves “priests of a religion” who seek to usurp power and gain more adherents for their religion. All this being done at the expense of Truth.

It must be difficult for Father Nichalas. With Cyprus located so close to Turkey, Greece, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, etc., and Rome not all that far away, he’s got plenty of competition. He doesn’t need those pesky “Darwinists” moving in on his turf. Anyway, what we just quoted is only a hint of what’s to come in his letter — and it’s all more of the same. We’ll jump to the end, which is somewhat interesting:

… God’s Will and actions are crucial to the existence of the universe and the origins of life within it. Therefore it is possible that there exists only one place in the universe with life, and thus only one place that His Son had to be sent to in order to provide the help necessary for life to continue to exist there. This of course is also a belief and has not been proven by any scientific experimentation, but I have Faith that it is true, and am also willing to admit the lack of evidence. I hope one day that the adherents of the religion centered on Darwin’s theories will one day be able to admit the same.

Very nice. A tad ignorant, but we enjoyed it. Now we turn to the second letter that was inspired by Dickenson’s earlier writing. This one is Why are our heads not coconut-sized then? Here we go:

The scientists you depend on, that jumped onto Mr Darwin’s bandwagon, are now rushing to leap off before the currently-increasing overwhelming scientific evidence against them will make them a laughing stock because ape and human chromosomes’ may be 98 per cent identical but still do not allow for the evolution theory.

Good, huh? There’s only one paragraph left, but we’re going to break it down into three parts so you can fully appreciate it:

Darwin should have been asked to explain why had primitive men needed, and nature provided such a powerful human brain?

Darwin was always polite, so he would never have replied to the letter-writer as we do now: “In some rather obvious cases, the human brain isn’t very powerful at all.” Here’s more:

Why has his theory of ‘what we don’t use we lose’, did not apply to us that are lumbered with carrying around an unnecessary 90 per cent worth of brain matter.

Use it or lose it — that was Darwin’s theory? Egad — we have a lot of catching up to do. Here’s the letter’s stunning conclusion:

Surely we could have evolved to have a coconut sized heads?

We can’t respond to that. What we can say is that we’ve enjoyed our Curmudgeonly visit to Cyprus. We had no idea it was such a fun place.

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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #348: Coconut Sized Heads

  1. The Second Letter Writer rhetorically (though a tad ungrammatically) demands

    Surely we could have evolved to have a coconut sized heads?

    No need for evolution to alter dimensions–if the contents of one’s head are already indistinguishable from that of a coconut.

  2. Richard Olson

    I can’t improve on Megalonyx’s observation. My only comment concern’s Dickensen’s otherwise fine letter, which is marred in the final paragraph by this:

    ‘It is pure Darwinism, survival of the fittest at the expense of the other’

    That describes Herbert Spencer’s bleak social outlook misattributed to natural selection processes identified by Darwin and Wallace, and has absolutely nothing to do with Theory of Evolution.

    This misuse is a huge error too often perpetrated in speech and writing by reality proponents. The mistake provides ammunition for the army of faith belief luddites fearing annhilation, desperate for any available means to destroy their enemy, and particularly grateful when that enemy hands their gunners cannon shells.

  3. Did you guys see this: “Creationism Advocate Admits That Science Proves Evolution, But Says We Should Believe The Bible Anyway”

  4. So…the writer is subscribing to the ludicrous theory that we only use 10% of our brains? Or am I misreading?

  5. Actually ‘This is because Darwin’s theories on evolution and the origins of life being caused by natural selection have in fact become a religion for many people. Darwin’s theory is in fact a theory, it is not a fact.’
    contains a 3rd basic error as ‘the origins of life’ is not part of evilution.

  6. L.Long says: “contains a 3rd basic error”

    Right. How did I miss that?

  7. Our Curmudgeon flagellates himself:

    How did I miss that?

    Have you checked the size of your head relative to a coconut recently?

    Olivia, faithfully by my side even as I type, assures me that size does matter…

  8. Richard Olson

    Stephen Foster @ Addicting Info states that there is no evidence for creation and it is therefore unprovable, but several times he also writes Creationist Theory and/or uses the word theory in his description of creationism.

    Shoot. Own. Foot. Theocrats love this sort of aid from the reality community; they are able to turn our own words against us, and gleefully do so.

    Many lay voters can’t get straight the meaning of, or distinguish the salient differences between, theory/hypothesis/claim. They sincerely want the best for students, and when they cast ballots to elect fundavangelicals to the schoolboard it is because they are convinced it is in the best interest of students to teach what they perceive as two explanations, each with specific areas of validity.

    They genuinely believe that creationism is factual and that evolution, at best, is some adjunct process, only recently recognized (150 years vs 2500 years of divine Word? Come on, crazy scientists!); and they sense that the factual components of evolution are actually not well understood even by the so-called ‘experts’ (those wild-assed scientists are always saying something is true, and then in no time flat they change their minds and charge off saying something else is now true). Evolution as (best) these folks understand it is full of processes and other features not mentioned in The Bible that sound, well, unlikely. Man from ape vs made in God’s image: not what ya find in the Bible or hear in church on Sunday, is it.

    And why should these people not persist in harboring such misconceptions? After all, even scientists and media who say there is no evidence for creationism, but lots of evidence for Darwin’s ‘idea’, refer to both creationism and evolution as ‘theories’. Reality is barely even a coherent term/concept in their vocabulary re the conversation at this point, thanks in no small part to us.

  9. Yeah, i had to do a little double-take when i read “Creationist Theory”

  10. So this guy believes in the “science” behind the “We only use 10% of our brain” but has a problem with evolution?

    For that matter, if we were created in God’s image, why would we only use 10% of our brain? I can only imagine how this guy would spin junk DNA into an argument against evolution.

  11. Greg says: “I can only imagine how this guy would spin junk DNA into an argument against evolution.”

    No problem. Junk DNA is like all those billions of junk planets out there. It’s proof of divine abundance, and it shows us how unique we are.