Creationist Wisdom #399: Solid Stupid

Today’s letter-to-the-editor is titled Time to tell the truth. It appears in the St. Augustine Record of St. Augustine, Florida, the oldest continuously-occupied European settlement in what is now the United States. It was first explored by Juan Ponce de León in 1513.

The letter we found is one which we would probably ignore on a day with genuine news to report, especially because of its brevity. But after giving it a second look, we find that it really is remarkable and deserves to be included in our collection. The reason we think so is that after its one-sentence introduction (which we’ll ignore), virtually every single sentence is wrong — amazingly so — and that includes the one-sentence conclusion which is based on all that precedes it. It’s a solid block of creationism, containing nothing that survives even the slightest rational thought.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we’ll omit the writer’s full name and city. We will mention that his first name is Sam. Because he gives us so little to work with, we’ll excerpt almost every sentence from Sam’s letter, one at a time so that you can savor each one, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Okay, here we go:

Many scientists preach theories such as the Big Bang Theory, which violates the first law of physics when it states “something cannot be created from nothing.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That “law” was formulated by Ray Comfort in his celebrated book, Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution (Amazon listing). Comfort is even better known for his starring role in Ray Comfort’s “Banana video”. Back to the letter:

It also attributes the beginning of life to a lightening strike in the primordial soup which, if true, would be tantamount to a tornado ripping through a junk yard and leaving behind a fully constructed 747!

Ah yes, Fred Hoyle’s junkyard tornado Let’s read on:

The reason behind stating these theories as virtual facts is the scientists’ desire to eliminate the need for a higher power to explain such phenomena.

Aaaargh!! No, Sam, it’s not because of “the scientists’ desire.” There’s a far less complicated reason. It’s the application of Occam’s razor — among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The letter continues:

Everything, they preach, has a natural cause.

It’s not preaching, Sam. If a natural cause can be demonstrated, then that’s what is taught. If you can demonstrate how a supernatural cause accomplishes something that nature can’t, we’ll eagerly consider your evidence. Here’s Sam’s next sentence:

Speaking of representing things as facts instead of theories, many programs on television are guilty.

Yeah, guilty! If people like Sam made the rules, those responsible for such heresy would be burned at the stake. And now we come to the end:

It’s time we reveal the truth.

Yes, Sam, it’s time to reveal The Truth. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

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

6 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #399: Solid Stupid

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    It must be a conspiracy, but those scientists forgot to cover up and remove the ‘first law of physics’ from grade school textbooks. Silly scientists, Sam paid attention in school and ‘gotcha’, you got some splainin to do.

  2. When that truth is revealed, I hope our SC will let us know.

  3. SC: “We will mention that his first name is Sam.”

    Sam could be a man or a woman. I haven’t done a complete count, but there were only 2 women in the last ~30 “wisdoms.” It would be interesting to see a complete count of the ~400, omit any with ambiguous names. But I suspect that the % women is well under 10. That despite the fact that the rate of evolution-denial is a bit higher among women than men. But letter-writers are a special subset of evolution-deniers. “Transitional fossils” if you will, between rank-and-file deniers and all-out anti-evolution activists, which themselves are ~90% male. I have thought of a few hypotheses for that discrepancy, but whichever, if any, turns out to be the correct one, I’m convinced that the phenomenon is far more significant than most people think.

  4. It’s hard to understand how someone could pack so much nonsense into so short a letter. As far as I can tell, “Speaking of representing things as facts instead of theories, many programs on television are guilty”, is the only accurate statement, but I’m pretty sure the programs I know misrepresent facts aren’t the ones Sam thinks do.

  5. “something cannot be created from nothing.”

    Um, isn’t this exactly what the creationists say happened when Goddidit?

    (And by the way, Sam, if “something cannot be created from nothing”, please explain then just how your God got there in the first place. Everything has to have a beginning, right? So who made God? Did He create Himself?)

  6. Oh my God that first sentence was priceless! Yeah, that’s right. One of science’s leading theories disobeys one of science’s fundamental laws. And yet no scientist noticed! Oh how lucky scientists are to share the world with the likes of people like Sam who are able to point out their foolishness and folly.