Creationist Wisdom #396: The Big Question

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Las Vegas Sun of Las Vegas, Nevada. The letter is titled Evolution can’t explain start of life.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we usually omit the writer’s full name and city. But today’s letter-writer has the same name as an Academy Award-winning actor. That could be a coincidence, so it’s best if we ignore his identity and refer to him only as “Robert.” We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

I always enjoy opinions from those who espouse the theory of evolution as fact. They are most entertaining. The latest is from Ann McFeatters.

He refers to this: A matter of science vs. religion, and it’s worth reading. But Robert didn’t like it, and what we find “most entertaining” are letters like his. He tells us:

McFeatters clutches to the theory that man evolved from ape as Charles Darwin theorized. Like most evolutionists, McFeatters always fails to answer one very basic question:

Aaaargh!! Please, Robert, don’t ask the question that creationists are forever asking. It’s actually the title of one of our old posts, Why Are There Still Monkeys?, where we pointed out:

a question they never seem to ask: Why are there — or why were there — any primates at all other than humans? It’s best that the creationists never ponder such questions, because thinking about such things leads to the theory of evolution. But by maintaining that their monkey question is a profound one, and following such “thinking” all the way, the creationists must surely ask themselves: If the emergence of a new species demands the disappearance of its ancestral stock, then why is there anything on earth other than humans?

Okay, let’s get to Robert’s question. Here it comes:

If man evolved from ape, where did the ape come from?

Huh? That’s his biggie? How very disappointing. We got all worked up over nothing! Ah well, this is still a good letter, so let’s read on:

Evolutionists will tell you apes evolved from a lower species, and then that animal, whatever it was, evolved from an even lower species and so on, right down to a one-cell creature. Sound right?

Yes, Robert, that’s how it goes; although each step isn’t necessarily a step up from a “lower” species. A lot of speciation results in what you might call cousin species, but let’s not get bogged down here. You’ve described the big picture. Is there a problem with it?

Yes, Robert thinks there’s a problem:

But here is the one thing no evolutionist can ever truly explain: How did life actually begin?

That’s because we don’t know yet, Robert. Numerous scenarios have been proposed, each of them a natural, albeit complicated, chemical process. Life may have arisen from almost any of them. We may never know which it was, even if something that actually works is demonstrated in a lab — and researchers are predicting that they’ll be successful in accomplishing that. But whatever may eventually be demonstrated, the original process did occur. The theory of evolution was never about life’s origin; it explains everything that follows from it. So again we ask — what’s the problem? He tells us:

If I understand it right, a giant explosion in space sent a rock spinning; it landed into perfect orbit with the sun and an atmosphere mysteriously developed that would sustain life, and from that atmosphere two substances found each other and sprang to life and all of the “flora and fauna” that Bill Nye wonders about began. Wow, now that’s faith!

Robert may call that fanciful cosmic scenario “faith,” but we’d describe his account as something far beyond ignorance. Ignorance is tolerable if it knows its place. Robert’s attitude is raging, flaming, arrogant idiocy; and unlike ignorance, his condition may be incurable. You, dear reader, might think we’re being a bit too judgmental here, but wait until you read Robert’s final paragraph, which is this:

There is a ton of evidence that supports creation. Creation can actually explain how life came to be, unlike evolution. It is not that the evidence does not exist; it is simply that people such as Mc­Featters refuse to acknowledge the real evidence, and when the mere mention of it is brought up in a school, evolutionists tend to lose their “overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution” and cling to “separation of church and state.” This is clear evidence that evolutionists do not know what they are talking about.

Well, Robert, if you are indeed the actor whose name you bear, we must congratulate you. That letter was your most entertaining performance ever.

Copyright © 2014. 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 #396: The Big Question

  1. Christine Janis

    Must be one of them primate-change deniers

    (Term unfortunately not original to me)

  2. But today’s letter-writer has the same name as an an Academy Award-winning actor.

    The capitalization’s different. Besides, I find it difficult to believe the actor could be so ignorant. The writer’s idea of the earth’s origins (“a giant explosion in space sent a rock spinning”, etc.) is priceless. Hasn’t the guy ever found the time to watch a Nova documentary?

  3. Anything is possible.

    That is not an explanation.

  4. This is clear evidence that evolutionists do not know what they are talking about.

    Your letter is clear evidence that you do not know what “evolutionists” are talking about.

  5. I love the smack of face-palm in the morning…

  6. Christine Janis says: “Must be one of them primate-change deniers”

    Hee hee!

  7. Oh, “Creation can actually explain how life came to be, unlike evolution.” Really? Okay, uh, how? “God did it?” I didn’t ask “who,” I asked “how” and I expect you to be prepared to back it up, guy. Oh, and realize that in the end I will ask you “How do you know? Were you there?” (Historical science is so wrong!)

  8. There is a ton of evidence that supports creation. Creation can actually explain how life came to be, unlike evolution.

    Hmm, so can the Easter Bunny story, or the Stork theory.

  9. If Michael Corleone came from Vito Corleone, how could Vito Corleone replace Tom Hagen as consigliere?

    Oops. I got my Robert Duvall-related fiction confused.

  10. Stephen Kennedy

    It seems like Robert got his information on the Big Bang from an old Kent Hovind DVD and we all know what a reliable source of information on Astronomy Hovind is.

  11. You don’t understand! Robert does! Chemistry doesn’t explain where atoms came from, therefore chemists “do not know what they’re talking about.” And as for Newton and the motion of the planets …