Creationist Wisdom #376: Genesis and Darwin

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of the Alabama Media Group, which hosts several newspapers in Alabama, but we have no idea which one gets credit for this item. It’s titled Belief in intelligent design does not require denial of evolution. 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. We will mention, however, that a quick search turned up a physician — a radiologist — with the same name and home town as the letter-writer. But that couldn’t be the same man. Or could it? We’ll leave that as a mystery. The letter speaks for itself. Okay, here we go:

Belief in intelligent design does not require acceptance of 5,000 years of existence or denial of evolution.

Yes, we know there are old-Earth creationists. The letter-writer then explains that he’s too smart to be one of those ignorant young-Earthers. He tells us:

If one reads the first chapter of Genesis with an open mind, one finds a fair description of both origin and evolution.

Ooooooooh! Evolution’s in there too! Let’s read on:

First a void and a mighty wind – not unlike a “big bang.”

Aaaargh!! He continues:

Then light, followed by water and then land.

Water before land. That’s absolutely logical. Here’s more:

Next comes vegetation on the land followed by animal life beginning in the sea and later on land and culminating in the development of us (considered to be the highest life form then and now despite what we regularly do to one another).

Ah yes — grass (and fruit trees) on day three, fish on day five. How could it be otherwise? We love this letter! Moving along:

If one considers that a day in the life of man could be a million or a billion years in the life of God, the writer of Genesis sounds not unlike Charles Darwin.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s one of the best lines ever. Another excerpt:

And the information in Genesis Chapter One was put together before they even knew that the world was round.

Yes, that is amazing. In fact the entire bible is written from the perspective that The Earth Is Flat. But even with that handicap, Genesis sounds like it could have been written by Darwin.

The letter ends on a condescending note, but given the letter-writer’s superior knowledge, who can blame him for this:

If we are, as the Book says, created in the image of God, we ought to begin to act a bit more like it.

Perhaps, dear reader, you should take the letter-writer’s advice and resolve that henceforth, you’ll start living up to that image.

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 #376: Genesis and Darwin

  1. With reference to the letter’s last sentence exhorting us to act more like we were created in the image of the god of his Holey Babble, I’m not sure that’s such a good idea. It would turn us into violent, moody, indiscriminate and bloodthirsty criminals.

  2. I’ve seen variations on this idea that the sequence in Genesis is the same as that from modern science. But there are major problems: (1) birds were created on day five, before land animals, but science tells us that birds are the descendants of dinosaurs (land animals). (2) there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of microbes, which make up the majority of life on Earth. (3) most problematic of all, the Sun, Moon and stars were placed in the heavens on day four; this not only conflicts with the scientific account of the Sun preceding the Earth and the Moon preceding life, but the Bible also says that the Sun, Moon and stars were placed there to mark the passage of time and divide day from night: how then could there have been those earlier three days and nights?

  3. Curmudgeon, I would have thought that this letter would be refreshing to you. Considering the level of the creationist “thinking” that you wade through every day in service to the cause of reason, this writer’s sentiments are almost lucid.

    However, this writer is going to get pounded by the delusional as well: you know what Ayatollah Hambo will think of it. I daresay you could write his reply for him.

  4. Garnetstar says: “this writer’s sentiments are almost lucid.”

    Almost lucid means not lucid.

  5. Alan Feuerbacher

    The letter writer’s view is much like that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They’ve been making the false claim for decades that Genesis is remarkably close to “true science” in its listing of the events of creation and their order. Like the letter writer, they carefully avoid discussing any actual details.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Round peg meets square hole. Now which is wrong, the peg or the hole. Wait, the peg is small enough to fit in the hole, so it is all good. Nevermind.

  7. More pretzel logic by someone who is unwilling to embrace the rational truth and who creates any excuse to remain ensconced in the seeming warmth of their elaborately designed fantasy world.

  8. Number three is in. You want to read it.

  9. Eddie Janssen says: “Number three is in.”

    I’m workin’ on it. Wait a few minutes.

  10. Yeah, the Genesis account is incredibly similar to what Darwin realised. That’s why it took two and a half thousand years and a total rejection of the Creation story before anyone conceived of evolution.

  11. Perhaps, dear reader, you should take the letter-writer’s advice and resolve that henceforth, you’ll start living up to that image.

    Does that mean I can keep a Canadian as a slave? Huh? Huh?

  12. RBH asks: “Does that mean I can keep a Canadian as a slave?”

    Canada isn’t in the bible. But go ahead, give it a try.

  13. Well, shoot, Leviticus says

    As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. (Lev 25:44-45)

    Seems to me Canadians qualify under that rule, no? 🙂

  14. Well, RBH, I’m not qualified to give ecclesiastical opinions, but if it seems right to you, then go ahead.

  15. Holy FSM, am I the only “Darwinist” left!? Seems so, because last I heard, only “creationists” insist on separate “kinds” (as in “creationists” and “Darwinists” created as such). This guy is clearly a “transitional fossil,” and one of the finest specimens yet. He may have phrased it clumsily (the word “allegory” would have helped), but nothing he said is inconsistent with what most people on the street who accept evolution would say, given the chance.

    I predict that if this guy ever writes another letter, it will sound nothing like that one. He will either have had his “D’Oh!” moment and realize that there’s a universe of difference between the “intelligent design” he believes, and the “Intelligent Design” scam that the DI peddles. Or he will have found a nice new toy with the DI’s “don’t ask, don’t tell what happened when” strategy, quietly backpedal from criticizing YEC and claiming that Genesis is consistent with evolution, and become a full-blown ID peddler.

  16. SC: “Canada isn’t in the bible. But go ahead, give it a try.”

    Oh I bet you can find it easily. At least as easily as finding assassinations predicted in “Moby Dick.”>/a>

  17. RBH says: “I think I want this one.”

    The problem with Canadians is they’re expensive to maintain. They eat walrus blubber, and you’ll have to import a steady supply.

  18. “If one reads the first chapter of Genesis with an open mind, one finds a fair description of both origin and evolution.”
    I wonder if the writer ever got any further than chapter 1? For in chapter 2 we find: “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Gen. 2:19.
    Quite a different, I hasten to say non-Darwinian order.

  19. I’m not sure why you picked on this guy, since he seems to be a theistic evolutionist. Genesis is pre-scientific and has little going for it but at least the guy isn’t a fundie and seems to be trying to reconcile the religion of his birth and the science that he learned later on. I’ll just add “the void” and “the mighty wind”…wait was the universe caused by one of God’s farts?

  20. Troy says: “I’m not sure why you picked on this guy, since he seems to be a theistic evolutionist.”

    I can’t recall when I’ve ever picked on a theistic evolutionist. But this guy just won’t accept the simple fact that Genesis is a folk tale. He still clings to it as being true.

  21. SC: “He still clings to it as being true.”

    Well it is “true” that Genesis exists, was written by one or more people (divine inspiration is untestable, so it makes no sense to speculate if that was the case), and makes testable statements on origins, if you take the words literally. So he’s definitely clinging to that, but aren’t we all?

    More importantly, it seems that he has reached that fork in the road, but has not quite figured out how to handle it. He agrees that evolution can be taken literally and the YEC interpretation of Genesis cannot. Though he does not mention it, his acceptance of evolution strongly implies that he rejects the common OEC interpretations as well.

    A 3rd possibility that I omitted in the previous comment is that he might continue the implication that the Genesis writers were “told by God that evolution is true but to write it cryptically because people at that time could not handle the truth.” That would be just as pseudoscientific as ID, but he would not have much company with that unusual approach.

    Having been not to far from his clumsy words myself ~20 years ago, my best guess is that if someone says “are you trying to say that Genesis is an allegory?” that he’ll agree.