Creationist Wisdom #412: Two Letters!

Today we bring you two — yes, two! — letters-to-the-editor. The first appears in the Indianapolis Star. It’s titled Intelligent design is evident in nature.

We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we’ll just use the letter-writer’s first name, which is Gordon. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis.

Gordon starts by complaining about recent letters criticizing intelligent design theory. He says those letters:

are very revealing by what they do not include — any solid evidence for their competing theory of the evolution of life.

Yes, that how it is with those wretched Darwinists — they never have any evidence. Then Gordon says:

Evolutionists handicap themselves, and therefore students in classrooms, by requiring that all their reasoning include only a “natural” explanation of how life came about.

What a bunch of fools! Let’s read on:

One need to only look at any seed — an apple seed for example. There is absolutely no way any seed happened solely by accident — by natural means. It is not logical, and therefore terribly unscientific.

It’s so obvious! He continues:

The apple seed has the entire program within it to produce a tree with scores of new apples, each one containing several seeds which, individually, can in turn can do the same thing — ad infinitum!

That’s fantastic! Here’s more:

To be so blind as to not see the absolute requirement of an intelligence far beyond that of mankind in explaining life — be it apple seeds or human beings — is akin to not being able to see the forest for the trees.

But wait — there’s more! That was only the first of the two letters we found today. The second appears in the Alpena News of Alpena, Michigan. It’s titled Can bullfrogs be changed into butterflies?

The letter-writer’s first name is Marlin. You can read an earlier article in that same newspaper about his attempt to persuade the school board to use the bible as a textbook, so Marlin is the bible guy in his town. Here are a few excerpts from his letter:

In evolutionary thinking, bullfrogs gradually changed into butterflies (and monkeys changed into man), which evolutionists say was a chance-happening occurrence that required no intelligence.

Yup — that’s how it is with evolution. One day you’ve got a bullfrog, and then … a butterfly. Moving along:

Look at the cycle of bullfrogs and butterflies and see the complexity of the egg-to-adult cycle. What kind of intelligence would be needed to alter the genetic makeup of a bullfrog to change it into a butterfly, as the evolutionary thinking requires?

You never thought about that, did you, dear reader? It takes a deep thinker like Marlin to show you the flaws in your theory. Another excerpt:

How does the evolutionary natural world (survival of the fittest) introduce into the bullfrog’s genetic structure the gradual genetic change that must occur to end up with a butterfly?

Well? Admit it — you don’t have a clue! We’ll close with one more piece from Marlin’s letter:

This exceeds natural thinking and enters into the miraculous realm of the intelligent designer God as found in Biblical creation. There does not exist a mechanism in the natural world that can change bullfrogs into butterflies.

There is nothing more to be said.

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

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #412: Two Letters!

  1. Ceteris Paribus

    SC says:
    Yup — that’s how it is with evolution. One day you’ve got a bullfrog, and then … a butterfly.

    Evolution actually works in both directions. I could prove that for you it if my wife would just let me post the link to my sister-in-law’s facebook page.

  2. Stephen Kennedy

    You would think that one would not want to make their abject ignorance of a topic public and put it on display for all to see. However, when it comes to the topic of the Theory of Evolution that idea does not seem to apply. These two letter writers clearly have no idea of what the Theory of Evolution actually says but showed no hesitation in making their ignorance about it public.

  3. These letter writers are generally so ignorant not only of evolution, but of science in general, that they really have no idea of what constitutes logic or critical thinking, evidence, or facts. Many of them are so god-soaked that they really can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and they easily fall prey to the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

  4. Mix a little “argument from ignorance” and “god-of-the-gaps”, sprinkle with holy water and . . . . . . . voila! We have Creationism in all its glory! Put a lab coat on it, and we have ID!

  5. There’s some sort of inverse square law with creationists, 2 letters resulted in 4 times the ignorance.

  6. Martin shares his ignorance in the Alpena News: “In evolutionary thinking, bullfrogs gradually changed into butterflies…”

    This is beyond a cat 5 WTF.

  7. The statements by these two fools show how wise our founding forefathers were. It is truely a wonderful thing that the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to hold any opinion and even enunciate it in public, regardless of how ignorant it makes you appear. (And in this case, it provides a high level of amusement)!

  8. I’m confused. So now it’s apples all the way down?

  9. I’ve seen bullfrogs AND butterflies down at the pond.

    There is no other explanation.

  10. Richard Olson

    ‘There does not exist a mechanism in the natural world that can change bullfrogs into butterflies.’

    The claim stated in this sentence is accurate. If only it wasn’t preceded by everything else Martin wrote, I might be deceived into believing he actually knows something.

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    “It’s not possible” and “it’s not logical” are not scientific positions. And they are pretty pathetic rhetorical tools, too.

  12. ladyatheist

    Is it any wonder that the student(s) who complained about Hedin have remained anonymous?

  13. Tadpoles turn into bullfrogs, caterpillars turn into butterflies. Obviously bullfrogs can turn into butterflies too.

  14. So after the crocoduck we now have the butterfrog?

  15. There does not exist a mechanism in the natural world that can change bullfrogs into butterflies.

    You know I have to agree with Martin, I’ve never seen it happen. Of course, the fact that nobody in their right mind has ever suggested such a drug induced observation is another matter. I think Martin is in need of good twelve-step program. Sir, can you please step away from the Bible. LMAO!

  16. Still, a croaking butterfly would be pretty cool….