Creationist Wisdom #420: Blasphemous Cartoon

Today’s letter appears at the website of the Albany Democrat-Herald of Albany, Oregon. The eye-catching title is Read the Bible.

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 John. We Googled around and found an accountant with the same name in Hawaii, but he’s probably not our letter-writer. We suspect that our man runs an employment agency in Oregon. 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!

In the cartoon, “An Age Old Argument,” (April 16, by Adam Zyglis) it is stated quite clearly that science has proved the earth is round (true), that gravity is real (true), that evolution is fact (false) and that global warming is real (opinion).

You can see a copy of that cartoon here: An Age Old Argument. It’s definitely worth a click to see it. In fact, you can’t appreciate today’s letter without it. Go on, we’ll wait. [*Curmudgeon waits*] Ready? Now we’ll return to the letter:

Readers should know that evolution has been scientifically discredited.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he tells us why:

The DNA digital code and the DNA operating system just recently discovered prove that random chance evolution is mathematically impossible. It has also been shown that it is mathematically impossible for the amino acids that form DNA to have formed by evolutionary processes. Also, the principle of irreducible complexity has showed that the simplest form of life currently known could not have evolved.

That’s not worthy of even a jocular response. Let’s read on:

As a result, many serious scientists have abandoned evolution as a plausible explanation for the origin of life.

Yeah — origin of life. John continues:

Intelligent design theory has been shown as a more rational explanation given the observable and reproducible science available.

Yes — except that it isn’t rational, or observable, or reproducible. Here’s more:

Adam [the cartoonist] also shows his ignorant man holding a Bible. While the Bible is one plausible explanation of intelligent design and the origin of life, it is not the only theory.

Aaaargh!!. Biblical creation isn’t a scientific theory because it isn’t testable and it offers no coherent explanation for anything. Otherwise, yeah — it’s plausible. So is The Time Cube. Moving along:

I will note that the science and authenticity of the Bible have been scientifically proven to be more reliable than any other ancient historical writing.

Huh? The Iliad has far less misinformation. And it’s much better written. Another excerpt:

Ironically, Adam’s equating evolution with scientific fact shows that he has made himself the ignorant man noted in the cartoon instead of the man holding the Bible.

Ah yes — Tu quoque. “You’re calling me an idiot? Well I say you’re an idiot!” And now we come to the end:

Lastly, I ask why Adam devalued the Bible in the first place and why any editor would publish a cartoon that casts doubt on the Bible and what it teaches? The love of God would do all of us a world of good. I suggest reading the Bible, starting with the book of John.

Thanks for the advice, John, but we suggest you look at the cartoon again. It’s not about the bible, any more than it’s about measuring sticks, birds, or snowflakes — which were in the three other frames. It’s about misunderstanding things, John. You see — oh, never mind. Just keep writing letters. We enjoy them.

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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #420: Blasphemous Cartoon

  1. It’s a shame that the cartoon is based on the shape of the Earth being controversial in the 15th century, or gravity in the 17th.

  2. Not all creationists believe the earth to only be thousands of years old. Look at the creationists Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, they were not simply products of their time. “Young Earthers” are a relatively new group, Isaac Newton was the first Christian to publish seriously on the age of the earth and his view was not “Young Earth.” Don’t paint us all like these crazies. Look more to men like Hugh Ross or Francis Collins. Surely Collins understands observable evolution in our DNA than you or I, yet he is a Creationist. It’s not crazy, even if some people within the broad umbrella of “creationist” are crazy. 🙂

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    @John Harris Oh, but this letter writer is a crazy, he deserves a spotlight on his brand of creationism. To your guys, a quick google to find they stand for Theistic Evolution sounds benign enough, and I would assume is mostly philosophical, not pretending that scientific fact is wrong or lies or unproven.

  4. John M. Harris, it’s agreed that the term “creationist” is very broad — so broad, in fact, that it is not useful as a description of one’s beliefs.

    There are the literalists who insist that every word of the Bible is inerrant; that the entire universe was created in six days; and that the Ussher Chronology stating that creation happened 6,000 years ago is correct. Every bit of evidence obtained by observing the nature of reality says otherwise.

    Then there are the “Old Earth” creationists who believe that God created the universe much longer ago than 6,000 years, but was still responsible for separately creating all the different species of life. When these creations took place isn’t specified.

    Others, perhaps you, hold that God created the beginning of life, but then “let nature take its course”, as it were, letting natural selection drive evolution. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove this idea, so it can’t truly be called a theory.

  5. @John M. Harris
    Isaac Newton was the first Christian to publish seriously on the age of the earth
    One may question whether Newton was Christian, but aside from that, one should note the possibly-1st-century Epistle of Barnabas, up through
    the 11th century Marianus Scotus of Mainz, and plenty of others.
    A quick search through Wikipedia mentions Newton’s date of creation as 4000 B.C. Dating creation: Abrahamic religions:Masoretic

  6. As great a scientist as Newton was, he was also an alchemist, deeply in to the occult; whatever he thought or didn’t think about origins is irrelevant.
    The same label of irrelevancy applies to Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Those were all brilliant men, but were simply not in possession of the vast quantities of data available to us. Creationists trot those guys out because creationists, by and large, live in a “top-down” culture that values perceived authority over actual facts and the well supported theories derived therefrom.

    Creationists may be sane in many regards, but creationism as a paradigm for origins, is complete weapons-grade insanity.

  7. I was in a hurry to write my previous post here, as “Cosmos” was about to begin. I’ve had some more thoughts on this…

    Basically, what difference does it make what religious ideas scientists of the past may have had? Or for that matter, present-day scientists? I see the likelihood that their interpretation of their data will be biased, perhaps not deliberately, but certainly unconsciously.

    It is very difficult to keep our early childhood religious indoctrination from coloring our view of reality. Our very survival as a species may well depend on our having a clear understanding of the nature of reality. Religious traditions and rituals may be a comfort to some, but those who insist that science is wrong if it contradicts their particular religion are doing humanity no favors.

    Let us use our ability to reason guide our pursuit of knowledge, rather than relying on ancient scripture.

  8. waldteufel, thanks for writing much more clearly what I started out trying to say. You hit the nail on the head — it is totally irrelevant what Newton et al. had to say about origins.

  9. I hate to be a party pooper, but the building blocks of DNA are not amino acids, but nucleotides. Amino acids are used to build proteins. I guess the author also missed the fact that amino acids and nucleotide building blocks can be produced by abiotic chemical processes, thus the origin of life is not a complete mystery. Further more it has been shown in the lab, that replicating RNA molecules can in fact evolve in response to environmental factors, i.e. natural selection in the test tube. And all the statical arguments that the origin of biological molecules and biological information are impossible testifies to the mathematical ignorance of the claimant.

  10. I agree that Newton’s opinion on alchemy or Kepler’s on astrology carries little weight with us today, nor does X’s on the fixity of species, when X had no knowledge of the evidence. Still, does any idea of any them did think about biology? Just as a matter of curiosity.

  11. docbill1351

    I hate to be a party pooper but you ALL are products of your time.

    Except for me, of course. I own a TARDIS.

  12. Do we ever see any follow-ups to letters like this (in the original publishing organ)? I rarely do in the Richmond Times-Disgrace, here in Richmond, Va.

  13. Lurker111 asks: “Do we ever see any follow-ups to letters like this (in the original publishing organ)?”

    Sure, that happens. I almost never bother with pro-science letters or columns that I see (Olivia’s column was an exception) because they don’t have any entertainment value. But sometimes a pro-science letter can lead me to the original creationist letter, which then shows up here.

  14. lectorconstans

    “… DNA operating system …”

    Maybe he’s thinking of the Android OS. After all, androids look human, don’t they? And they occasionally count electric sheep.

    The Bible is not about science – there was none when it was written. They still thought that round wells had a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. (Which is close enough for government work)