Creationist Wisdom #358: Formidable Evidence

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Salina Journal of Salina, Kansas. It’s titled Neo-Darwinism versus Intelligent Design. 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, but after a Google search we can inform you that this guy writes a lot of letters, and several have previously been published in the same paper. Okay, here we go:

In their dogmatic overcommitment to the belief in a universe without purpose or design, the neo-Darwinist evolutionists and their adherents resort to disregarding evidence and reasoning that contradicts their arguments. They typically dismiss such out of hand, not addressing sometimes self-verifiable facts. They then present their own biased assertions as proven beyond doubt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a wild beginning! This looks like a winner. We can’t quit now. The rant goes on:

Such was exemplified by Gerald Martin’s Sept. 4 letter to the Journal in response to certain statements I have made in support of Intelligent Design theory. Perhaps with the aim of impressing his readers with his erudition, Martin began by throwing out geological and astronomical textbook data that he seems to construe as supporting the randomness hypothesis of biological evolution.

He’s talking about this: The history of gods and the Earth. It’s a fine letter, and it’s a response to an even earlier one written by today’s letter-writer. These two guys seem to have been battling it out for quite a while. Let’s get back to today’s letter:

The passage of eons of geological time, however, in no way increases the possibility of life being generated by random, fortuitous (“lucky”) events. Statistically, as a possibility, the chances are virtually nonexistent. As Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and cosmologist said, “The probability of life emerging by accident is less than that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Creationists love Fred Hoyle’s junkyard tornado. Let’s read on:

I stand behind my statement that there is a primal form of mind driving evolutionary processes, as dictated by the principle of causality. It is, indeed, “obvious” to anyone who believes that the designed structures we see all about us cannot have emerged out of random events and processes.

Sloppy. The letter-writer’s “principle of causality” will lead him to an infinite series of gods who created the gods who created the “primal form of mind” he proposes. He’s correct, however, when he says that anyone who denies natural processes must therefore resort to supernatural causes. But he doesn’t realize that his infinite series of gods and the supernaturalism that emerges from his denial of natural processes are both invalid for the same reason — see Reductio ad absurdum. The letter continues:

No, Mr. Martin, there has been no fossil found yet as being taxonomically identified as an intermediate form between two different species, despite the many tons of speciments [sic] unearthed. No amount of digging is likely to produce such.

Lordy, lordy. We have to link to this again: List of transitional fossils. Here’s more:

Biblical young-earth creationism is not the only other alternative to neo-Darwinist evolutionism. There are others, foremost being evolution by Intelligent Design. It is not contradicted by any current geological and astrophysical knowledge; in fact, it is supported by it.

ID isn’t contradicted by the evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In a way, that’s true. The ID boys just claim that whatever the evidence may be, their “theory” is a better explanation. But their “theory” is useless because it isn’t testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no evidence that their magic designer has ever existed. ID theorists are nowhere in demand (except bible colleges), because their “theory” literally doesn’t explain anything. And now we come to the end:

By disengenuously [sic] (if not intentionally) equating it with Christian-literalist creationism, you are sidestepping the formidable evidence and reasoning that undermines neo/ultra-Darwinism.

Yes, he’s got “formidable evidence” that undermines “neo/ultra-Darwinism.” What’s that, dear reader? You want to see his evidence? It’s in his letter, you dolt! Read it again.

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #358: Formidable Evidence

  1. there has been no fossil found yet as being taxonomically identified as an intermediate form between two different species

    Answers in Genesis has a list of Arguments that should never be used, and number 8 is
    “No new species have been produced”.

    There is more to the evidence for evolution than the fossil record, although there are abundant instances of transitional fossils.

  2. Amazing how they trot out Fred Hoyle when it suits them, but learn nothing beyond the quote mining. Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory (he coined the term as a mockery of the idea) and supported the steady state theory, that of a infinitely old, forever renewing universe. A steady state universe means no need for their Christian God…oops, their “unknown intelligent designer”. Hoyle also rejected the theories of evolution and abiogenesis, but in favor of panspermia, not exactly any idea compatible with their Christian beliefs.

    Also isn’t every species by definition a transitional species unless it dies out without leaving offspring?

  3. I like the way he defined fortuitous for the readers. That wasn’t condescending at all! Although, perhaps he should have used a dictionary instead of pretending to be one and avoided the spelling mistakes.

  4. Not to mention the oxymoronic goofiness of “… disengenuously [sic] (if not intentionally)…”.

  5. Thanks, SC, I just checked my license. No, I’m not overdue… quite the opposite. It’s good until 2021, which is much longer than I’ll need it, if my Parkinson’s progresses at its current rate.

  6. It took just a few sentences of that “wisdom” to make me want to dust off a golden oldie. In 2007, in less than an hour I came up with more than 1,000,000 objections to evolution. Here are 3 of them:

    1. Godless Evolutionism is a secular religion. Students must be taught the Earth is less than 10000 years old because they deserve better than liberal propaganda.

    2. Naturalistic Evolution is a left-wing plot. Students must be taught there was no Big Bang because this is a Christian Nation.

    3. Darwinism, which claims that we come from monkeys, is a theory that is rejected by a growing number of scientists. Students must be taught that we aren’t just a bag of chemicals because they must be saved from being brainwashed by secular society.

    In the rare case you haven’t figured out how I did it, think about this: I never read 99+% of those arguments, yet, technically I designed them all.

  7. PS: I’ll award a lifetime membership to the nonexistent EAC to the first person to figure out the exact number of those “objections.” 😉

  8. By disengenuously [sic] (if not intentionally) equating it with Christian-literalist creationism….

    Fascinating how he pretends that we we don’t exist. By “we” I mean the few “Darwinists” who refuse to take the bait by reacting with “ID is too creationism,” but plainly admit that the ID scam is very different than the mutually-contradictory Biblical creationisms, despite the common commitment to peddling pseudoscience and a radical, paranoid authoritarian ideology. ID was made necessary not because of legal problems with teaching those Biblical “theories.” but simply because former and would-be peddlers of them gradually realized that none have any evidence, and the fatal contradictions add insult to that injury. The ID scam was evolving well before the “cdesign proponentsist” “transitional fossil.”

    In any case, if he claims to have something other that one of the mutually-contradictory Biblical creationisms, he’s more than welcome to support it – and test it – on its own evidence, independent of his rote-memorized, long refuted “weaknesses” of “neo/ultra-Darwinism.”