Creationist Wisdom #349: Debate Is Evidence

You remember Pennsylvania Creationism: A Bill for 2013?, which we recently wrote about some proposed creationist legislation. A draft bill is being promoted in Pennsylvania by state Representative Stephen Bloom, a rural sociologist.

Bloom sent a memo around the legislature earlier this month, seeking co-sponsors for what looked like a typical Discoveroid “academic freedom” bill. His memo included all the Discoveroid talking points. Those at the Discovery Institute who recognize the malevolence of their enterprise would regard Bloom as a useful idiot.

As far as we can tell, Bloom’s bill hasn’t been filed yet. Nevertheless, it has inspired one supporter. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website, which is connected with the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where the state capitol is located. The letter is titled Evolution can’t beat creationism if schools allow fair argument.

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; however, we looked around and found someone in Pennsylvania with the same name as the letter-writer. He runs some kind of religious organization, but we can’t tell what it is. That’s probably our man. Okay, let’s get started.

Rep. Stephen Bloom has introduced a bill to open the discussion in science class to intelligent design. This has caused an outcry from the evolutionists. John L. Micek, in the Patriot-News, writes that evolution is well-settled science [link]. Really? Why is there a debate then?

Why is there a debate? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s like … what? Is it possible come up with an analogy to that question? No, nothing compares to a diehard creationist asking: “If evolution is settled science, then why is there a debate?” That’s beautiful! The debate itself is evidence that the subject is debatable. It’s a kind of tautology. What can we call it — the fallacy of the contrived controversy? Not good enough. Whatever it’s ultimately called, it’s destined for internet immortality.

Anyway, what he’s grumbling about this: A lack of intelligent design in lawmaker’s proposal. That was written by John L. Micek, the Opinion Editor of PennLive and The Patriot-News. Today’s letter-writer disagrees with it. He says:

Perhaps, Mr. Micek, you could take me to the lab and demonstrate how life began. Can you show me an explosion that produces order such as we have in our universe today? Can you produce mutations of one species into another species? Needless to say, none of this is provable in the science lab. The evolutionist takes it all by faith.

Aaaargh!! No, we can’t take the letter-writer into the lab and reproduce the Big Bang, or the evolution of the Earth’s biosphere. And if he were given a far simpler challenge, he couldn’t take us into the lab and demonstrate his own conception and birth, but he probably believes those things happened. Let’s read on:

However, faith does not belong in the science class, Mr. Micek declares. Without faith, evolution is sunk. Yet the faith of the creationist is rejected in the science classroom. Why? If you put the two theories beside each other, evolution will be rejected.

“Clueless” doesn’t begin to describe the letter-writer. There aren’t enough words — at least none that we’ll let ourselves use here. So, after slowly shaking our head in amazement, we continue with the letter. Fortunately, there’s not much more of it:

This whole debate is a spiritual problem. The evolutionist cannot bring himself to believe in creation and be responsible to God. So he hides behind an un-provable theory.

Yeah, he’s got it all figured out. Whatever you may think of this guy, he’s exactly the kind we’d expect to support Bloom’s bill. And we applaud the Patriot-News for publishing it — it serves their purpose. Here’s the last of it:

Where is academic freedom?

The moon-landing denier and the flat-earther could ask the same question, and to them we’d give the same answer: Academic freedom doesn’t include the right to spew nonsense in science class.

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 #349: Debate Is Evidence

  1. It would be nice if someone would point out to these fundamentalists that the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with evolution (in fact they teach the Big Bang and evolution in Catholic schools). Oops! My bad. That doesn’t wash since the fundamentalists probably don’t consider the Catholics to be real Christians.

  2. These people cannot be argued with. Nature is largely self-organizing. One can go up on the mountains and find samples of granitic rock with coarse crystals easliy recognized as being made of three separate substances. We have a “story” about how this came to be. That story requires a great deal more time than the YEC’s 6000 year old Earth will provide but we didn’t just create a story. We went into a laboratory and simulated the conditions we claim were involved and produced granitic rock just like that found in nature. Our story is supported by evidence which makes it science. Similarly the Miller-Urey experiment shows that complex organic molecules can be formed from water, atmospheric chemicals, and lightning over relatively tiny amounts of time (I have replicated this myself).

    Their stories have no such evidence, nor are they tring to acquire it. If they really believed that God has shown himself in his creation, shouldn’t they be doing that?

    But then we are up against the adage to “never argue with a pig. . . .”

  3. Being perfectly aware of the facts,like what the Catholic Church accepts,scientific evidence,the difference in their evidence,and all the other twisting and mangling of “facts” hasn’t seemed to stop any of the repeated attempts at this Teach the (made up)Controversy or whatever nonsense so far. The only thing I’ve been able to accomplish so far is be more confident,and slightly firmer,convincing,and louder in the thankfully few meetings so far in my town. If we had a bigger college,who knows?

  4. That was written by John L. Micek, the Opinion Editor of PennLive and The Patriot-News.

    Micek seems to be a bit of a hero, doesn’t he? Unless I’m much mistaken, he’s stuck up against the creationists repeatedly in this journal.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    So, historical information in the bible, some of it without any outside verifiable proof, is to be accepted on face value. BUT historical information from multiple scientific arenas that all corroborate cannot be accepted because you can ‘prove it’ in a lab. Can’t we demand that the letter writer come to a lab and create a plague of frogs?

    I’ll make it easier on him, explain why the creation story leaves out four of the kingdoms of life. You’d think god would have wanted credit for that.

  6. New photo, Charles Deetz? Very nice.

  7. As in Dover the evilution thing will have to be decided in court. Also If you are going to deny science then don’t be surprised by high tech companies not hiring you. But I have found that dimwitted xtians may deny most science they tend to compartmentalize it to just evilution and continue using their iPhones.
    I just finished debating a xtian and his argument was scientist can’t get the ages right because they cannot carbon date the fossils accurately and he did not come from a monkey, and he swears he studied science.
    They keep on throwing the same BS and DENY! everything else.

    And the asking: “If evolution is settled science, then why is there a debate?” is the reason Dawkins refuses to debate them. The debate gives the creatard some legitimacy.

  8. Apologies, off-topic for this post, but in case other readers of this splendid blog have missed it, there is an excellent review of Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt at Religion Dispatches: Creationism 3.0: Meet Intelligent Design’s Huckster

  9. Thanks for the pointer, Megalonyx. I’d managed to miss that one.

  10. Even more off-topic for this present post–but it is a topic our Curmudgeon recently–er, touched on, but not with such a ‘begging the question’ headline: Man’s scrotum swelled to 132 pounds due to lack of health insurance

    Man, do NOT let your health insurance policy lapse! Keep them premiums coming–or else!

  11. So evolutionists are wrong if they can’t produce it in a lab. But if they ever DO make it in a lab, they’ve just proved Intelligent Design.

  12. Since it’s THEIR Controversy only, let them debate each other.

  13. You are a covard and a simple waist of time and effort to even bother to have a conversation with.

    Thisnsite is like the “freinds of Israel” have all over the place, packed with stupid peasnts with morronic knowledge, and have an inuqe way of drule down anything sensible, with “their” belife, sorry sorry Facts.

    How about telling US what YOU belive, and say is the truth about the evolution, huh, if you have one.


    So far all you have prove moron, is you inability to muster any real debate, and have fallen into your own irrorimage, like the emperor with out couds.

    I feel sorry for you.


  14. What was the [Deleted] bit in mikael’s post? Do tell!

  15. Oh, wait a minute: I’ve found it.

  16. mikael’s spell checker apparently wasn’t working.

  17. Still, the emperor needs new couds.

  18. Such eloquence and sophistication is what makes hammites like mikael so winsome….

  19. I never took SC for a waist of time. An elbow of time, or perhaps a liver of time, but never a waist.

  20. Thank you Mikael for another example where we can question the perceived intelligence behind design.

  21. His balls weigh 132 pounds? He must work for the Discovery Institute.