Creationist Wisdom #374: Evolution Is Immoral

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Victoria Advocate of Victoria, Texas. Since the last time we visited that paper, they’ve installed a feature on their website that requires you to answer a question before you can read the article. The question was about insurance, and we selected “None of the above.” Then the whole letter was readable. It was well worth the effort.

It’s titled Real debate about evolution is morality. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Because we don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians or otherwise in the public eye), we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:

Evolution is not about science – it is about morality. When people refuse to believe the truth, they believe lies.

It’s going to require some deep thinking to get through this one, but we’ll try. Then he says:

Molecules-to-man evolution, macroevolution, believes that in the beginning, nothing became something, and after a long period of time, non-life became life. Then, after even more time, a single molecule became the complex organisms known as humans.

Wow! In two brief sentences we’re given an amazing description of evolution. He starts with ol’ Hambo’s “molecules-to-man” phrase, then he tosses in “macroevolution,” followed by Ray Comfort’s “in the beginning, nothing became something,” and then the origin of life — which isn’t part of the theory of evolution. That was all in one sentence. The next one swiftly dashes through the history of life on Earth. A compact, yet comprehensive definition like that must be the result of a lifetime of study. Let’s read on:

The other alternative is that the Bible is true, and “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Never have the alternatives been set forth with such clarity. He continues:

Science is about discovering the wonders of God’s creation like the complexity of even our smallest cells, not figuring out hypothetical ways creation came into being without God.

Yes, oh yes! That’s what science is all about. Here’s more:

The morality part is that if there is a creator, then we, the created, are subject and accountable to Him.

Okay. Then, after skipping a paragraph of bible stuff, we come to the letter’s end:

Evolution cannot explain the nature and character of God within us. It cannot explain reason, logic, creativity, kindness, goodness, faith, hope and the greatest of these – love.

Verily, evolution is worthless. Great letter!

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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #374: Evolution Is Immoral

  1. WOW!!! ‘Evolution cannot explain the nature and character of God within us. It cannot explain reason, logic, creativity, kindness, goodness, faith, hope and the greatest of these – love.’

    To think I wasted all those years studying only to find out evilution does not answer any important questions.

  2. We are truly faced with a penetrating Thinker of Rodinesque perspicacity — and never mind that consequentialist considerations are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of a given claim. It’s obviously sufficient to say you don’t like an idea in order to discount it… 🙄

  3. Con-Tester identifies our inimitable Klingy as

    a penetrating Thinker of Rodinesque perspicacity

    .

    I am almost in full agreement with this assessment, though I think the slightly more precise sobriquet would be DobieGillisesque

  4. This seems to be a common belief among creationists, which is why they are immune to facts, reason and evidence.

  5. Need I remind you that “molecules to man” is what happens when we eat food, drink water, and breathe air.

  6. I read the first two sentences. Paused. Re-read them. Read them again. Furrowed my brows. Strained to make sense of it. Gave up, and then read your comment “It’s going to require some deep thinking to get through this one”. I couldn’t agree more!

  7. The morality part is that if there is a creator, then we, the created, are subject and accountable to Him.

    And let us distinguish between the creation of the individual and the creation of the collective (the population, the species, or the “kind”).

    Is morality a collective thing, or is it an individual responsibility?

    Evolutionary biology is about changes to populations. Things like the origins of species.

    Reproductive biology is about the origins of individuals.

    Which science is a danger to morality?

  8. TomS recites from the letter: “if there is a creator, then we, the created, are subject and accountable to Him.”

    Not necessarily. As we learn from the experience of Herr Doktor Frankenstein, sometimes that which we create has a mind of its own.

  9. We should be aware that there is a reason that the Creator took primates as a model for the creation of man. If we want to follow the intentions of the Creator, that means that we ought to behave like a primate.
    The theory of evolution says that the similarity between the human body and that of chimps and other apes is merely a matter of chance, of impersonal natural events, and has no implications for morality.
    So, if we believe in creationism rather than in evolution, and want to act in accordance with morality (that is, the will of our Creator), we will act like monkeys.

  10. The other alternative is that the Bible is true

    No, the stories of a minor bronze age tribe are not the default explanation of nature. Besides, there are numerous ancient creation stories, some of which were held by much larger and more advanced civilizations. Why are the stories of the relatively small Hebrew tribe any more credible than any of the others?

    With respect to “God within us” comment. Has anyone noticed that the ancient tribes of Israel were treated much better by their conquerers, including Egyptians, Babylonians, and Romans, than they treated any of the peoples they themselves conquered? The Israelites slaughtered them all. If the chosen people had God within them, it certainly wasn’t the same God the author of the letter describes.

  11. With regard to Ed‘s comments about how Israel treated the peoples it conquered. I suggest the possibility that those are largely foundation myths, intended to justify the presence of Israel within its territory by claiming that they won it in battle, with the help of their god, rather than just having been another one of several indistinguishable Canaanite tribes, who happened to be here rather than somewhere else. Take a look at the myth of the foundation of Rome as another example of the tall stories that one tells to explain how one is favored by the gods.

  12. This makes five of the last seven examples of creationist wisdom, including three in a row, from the Lone Star State.

  13. @Tom – I fully agree, there is little evidence that any of those stories are historical. Even if they weren’t historical, they still reflect what the tribes would like to believe happened – which is that they slaughtered everyone else who was there when they arrived. That’s not exactly the sort of stories a people full of virtuous morals would invent and repeat through the generations. My point is that people who argue that evolution cannot account for our moral character – but God can – have not read their bibles.

  14. SC:

    I corrected one of your sentences (my changes in italics):

    Wow! In two brief sentences we’re given an amazing example of how many falsehoods can be crammed into so few words – possibly breaking the previous record.

    In any case, whenever these klowns drink the Klinghoffer KoolAid – admitting that their real objection to evolution is paralyzing paranoia that the “masses” will misbehave if they accept it – that tells me that they’re well aware they can’t compete on the evidence. In which case the only way to respond to them is to calmly ask for details of what God did with the molecules on the way to man, and when He did it. Then have fun watching them weasel out of answering. Make sure an audience is present so they can see who’s trying to hide something.