Creationist Wisdom #443: Evolution and Sin

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Carlsbad Current-Argus of Carlsbad, New Mexico. It’s titled: Conservatism anchors God’s word.

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 there’s no problem this time. The letter-writer is a preacher — Rev. Kurt Simmons of the Halegueno Street Church of Christ. His church has no website that we can find, but Googling around we get the impression that it was founded in 2012, and has one employee.

That’s not important. All that matters is what the rev says in his letter. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

It is no secret that there are liberal churches and there are conservative churches. There are many things that differentiate these churches, but by and large their differences boil down to a single thing: Their respective attitudes towards the authority of God’s word.

[…]

What the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — says about homosexuality is no secret: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God (who does not change) is known to all. Where God’s word is received as authoritative sexual immorality of every sort, including homosexuality and lesbianism, will be condemned.

That’s very interesting, rev, but come on — where’s the creationism? [*Curmudgeon restrains himself*] We must be patient with the rev. He’ll get around to it. But first he has to tell us this:

Verbal inspiration is the very bedrock of Biblical authority. If the Bible is not God’s word, if it is just so many myths and fables, if it contains merely the subjective thoughts and impressions of fallible men, we may ignore it with impunity: It is a bold new world. Men and churches are then free to “make it up as they go.”

Okay, rev — that’s enough. Get to it! Our readers don’t want to wade through a whole Ark-load of babbling! [*Curmudgeon loses patience, takes control, skips a bunch … ah, we finally arrive at the good stuff*] Here it comes:

The State-sanctioned religion of atheistic evolution and Darwinism once presented a serious challenge to the inspiration of the scripture. Christians began to doubt whether the Genesis account could be trusted, or was just a myth. However, with time the theory of evolution has been shown to be farcical.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

The fossil record has produced no intermediate forms, no missing links. The whole theory is so completely unscientific, only man’s fallen nature and moral depravity can recommend it to his conscience.

The rev certainly knows whereof he speaks. Here’s more:

Sadly, the complete lack of scientific evidence supporting Darwinism has not deterred the enemies of righteousness from polluting the minds of tens of millions of hapless schoolchildren with their lies.

Yes, it’s the “enemies of righteousness” — like you, dear reader — who run around polluting the minds of children with your lies. Moving along:

Children grow up; the lies children are taught in school eventually find their way into the attitudes of some churches; out goes the Bible, and in comes sodomical marriages and whatever else cultural trends happen to recommend.

Aaaargh!! Evolution leads to sodomy! Darwin’s true motives are exposed! The rev has revealed everything! And now we come to the end:

Christians must answer the call to conservatism and reject liberal attitudes which impugn the verbal inspiration of scripture and the authority of God’s word. Otherwise the church is completely adrift, blown around with every wind of doctrine, with no anchor to keep it off the rocks of apostasy.

Take heed, dear reader. The only way to avoid sodomy and getting “blown around” with every wind is to abandon Darwinism. Repent now, before it’s too late!

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

30 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #443: Evolution and Sin

  1. Amazing, the guy willingly puts his entire religion on the chopping block on a bet that the theory of evolution is false. A more subtle strategy, something other than “all in” might help him preserve a bit of what he has if he loses the bet. Especially as he clearly knows nothing about said theory. Ah, such is the power of faith, a man will bet all on what he knows nothing about.

  2. I think your last “Aaaaargh!” actually deserved a “BWAAAAHAHAHA!”

  3. ” . . . with no anchor to keep it off the rocks of apostasy.”
    My guess is that it took half a bottle of cheap booze late at night to produce that gem.

  4. “Christians must answer the call to conservatism and reject liberal attitudes which impugn the verbal inspiration of scripture and the authority of God’s word.”

    So, just to be clear, the Christian Church really is nothing more than an extention of the Republican Party?

  5. Rev. Kurt Simmons effluviates—

    “Sadly, the complete lack of scientific evidence supporting Darwinism has not deterred the enemies of righteousness from polluting the minds of tens of millions of hapless schoolchildren with their lies.”

    Flies buzz. A gust of hot air stirs up a dust devil. Kid Drool-o-tron and Luke Ironymeter eye one another warily across the dry expanse of the stupidity-baked desktop, as each waits for the other to draw first…

  6. Mark Joseph

    @Justin:
    For quite a while now, I have phrased it like this: “The modern American evangelical church is nothing more than the religious wing of the neo-conservative movement.”

  7. “Sodomy”? You know, the fundies always get this one wrong, assuming “sodomy” means anal intercourse.

    Ezekiel 16:49: “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (New International Version). Other translations make the same point using slightly different wording.

    Why should we heed their demands that we believe the Bible as literally written when they don’t even know what it says?

  8. Another reminder: Because of ongoing technical problems, I may be off the internet until sometime tomorrow. Everything’s working now, but my connection is very unstable.

  9. I completely agree with the Rev when he says:

    Verbal inspiration is the very bedrock of Biblical authority. If the Bible is not God’s word, if it is just so many myths and fables, if it contains merely the subjective thoughts and impressions of fallible men, we may ignore it with impunity: It is a bold new world. Men and churches are then free to “make it up as they go.”

    Seems to me that men and churches have been making it up as they go since the beginning of men and churches. What gets me is how they talk about “THE Bible” as if it was a single unchanging thing that everyone agrees about. How many thousands of different versions of the “THE Bible” are there? Each with their own interpretations and many with different contents. How often do we see equally “devout” and equally educated in “the word of the Lord” religious figures disagree on what “THE Bible” actually says and means?

    I also find it a bit strange that the Rev cites “Verbal inspiration is the very bedrock of Biblical authority.” I guess he never played Telephone as a kid, because then he would know that the original verbiage quickly gets distorted when it is passed on to others, often ending up saying something entirely different than was first meant.

  10. Ceteris Paribus

    waldteufel highlights the Rev’s ending words : ” . . . with no anchor to keep it off the rocks of apostasy.”

    Surely with all the verbage the Rev used in his paragraph about “sexual immorality of every sort” he could have suggested his congregation take the precaution to pack along some chains or handcuffs in case there wasn’t any anchor handy.

  11. @Eric Lipps. Interesting point about “they did not help the poor and needy.” Considering that political conservatives in the U.S. seem generally opposed to helping the poor and needy (or at least having the government provide such support), it’s strange that these same people attempt to justify their views with biblical references.

    The Rev’s rant supports my belief that anyone who says that they “do not believe in evolution” most likely does not comprehend what Darwin wrote, nor do they know what has been discovered since Darwin’s time that has added support for his explanation of evolution.

    Perhaps the Rev could take the time to watch Julia Sweeney’s “Letting Go of God.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTvx_QA6gIc

    (Also available from Netflix).

    Realist1948, a.k.a. Hideo Gump on Facebook

  12. Hideo Gump, aka Realist1948: “Considering that political conservatives in the U.S. seem generally opposed to helping the poor and needy (or at least having the government provide such support)…”

    But is it constitutional for the government to coerce “charity” under threat of imprisonment (or worse, if one were to choose to forcibly resist arrest for nonpayment of taxes)? The politicians are not practicing charity when they enact welfare laws; it’s not their money that they are directing the government to give away.

    I realize this is not the appropriate blog to debate whether we should allow politicians to buy votes in this manner, so I’ll say no more.

  13. retiredsciguy asks: “But is it constitutional for the government to coerce “charity” under threat of imprisonment …?”

    Actually, conservatives are more charitable, in the voluntary sense. Even the NY Times agrees — see Bleeding Heart Tightwads.

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions.

  14. @retiredsciguy:

    After I evolved from mostly left to mostly right I found it just as nearly impossible to change the mind of a committed far-left person as it was to change the mind of a committed evolution-denier. So I don’t even try in either case, and hope that this thread does not tangent on to a no-win economic debate. So all I’ll say in hopes that you, SC and a few others appreciate it, is when I think of govt. helping the poor, the lyric to the theme from the long-forgotten 70s sitcom “When Things Were Rotten” comes to mind. It was about Robin Hood and his merry men, and how they stole from the rich, gave to the poor, “except what they kept for expenses.”

  15. @Frank J: I know I said above that I’d say no more on the matter, but I really like that “except what they kept for expenses” line. Now (maybe) I’ll say no more.

  16. WRT who gives to non-profits, I found this part of the NYT article interesting: “According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.” I didn’t find (in the article) what the actual percentages are… that would be interesting.

    Although the whole issue of conservatives vs. liberals donating to non-profits could be fertile ground for debate, that would take us far afield from the main SC topics.

    Regards to all. Hideo Gump a.k.a. Realist1948

  17. Whatever you believe about the government’s role in helping the poor, there is an ark-load of hypocrisy in the position “the government should be more Christian, except that the poor should stop being poor.”

    I guess as JC said, “Thou shalt pull thine self up by thine own bootstraps.”

    Matthew 1:3-4 (KJV)

  18. Just a load of BS dribbled from the slack lips of a person stuck in the delusion that some imaginary friend talks to him.

  19. @Mark Germano: I got a bit suspicious about that bootstrap quote (everyone knows Jesus wore flip-flops, aka Jesus slippers), so I Googled up Matt. 1:3-4 —
    “3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;”

    You have a strange Bible, Mark. You might have gotten away with it if you had written “sandalstraps”. Actually, though, JC remarked that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. (Mark 10:25). Maybe that explains why the rich, conservative religious types give more to charity. Or why they put all assets into a trust. I can hear them now — “Hey, God — let me in! I’m dead broke! See? I got no money, Honey! I’m flatter than Hillary & Bill when they left the White House!”

  20. RogerE ponders—

    “How many thousands of different versions of the ‘THE Bible’ are there?”

    Oh, around 41,000 recognised variants worldwide if you accept “different interpretations” as metaphorically equivalent to “different versions” — which indeed appears to be the case in view of the fact that each version condemns the other 40,999 as heresy.

    Of course, the above number ignores the interpretational differences within each of those recognised denominations. If one also counts those, the bottom-line figure is then roughly equal to the number of passably literate readers of the Holey Babble.

    Be that as it may, it’s a very curious thing that a perfect, all-powerful being’s crucially important supernatural dictations to mankind should (1) be so open to such a vast array of different takes, and (2) not originally have been made available in a single universal and unambiguous language. Avoiding both should have been child’s play for Ol’ Dandy Grandy — or so you’d think.

  21. @RSG, your version of the Bible sounds super boring. I don’t think Republican Jesus would say something so lame. He would say awesome things like:

    “For wherever two or more gather in my name, I am there, except if one is gay or an evolutionist. Especially a gay evolutionist. Then, I’m totally hanging out with someone else. Ewww.”

  22. Con-Tester tells us there are around 41,000 versions of the bible. But so what? Look how many different versions of the Pythagorean theorem there are. And how many different periodic tables of the elements are drifting around? And evolution — don’t get me started on that!

  23. Hmm… by Gnocchi, that’s a point, isn’t it!? In terms of reproductive diversity and success, the Holey Babble certainly has all that fancy science stuff squarely beat, eh?

  24. jimroberts

    Con-Tester wonders why “crucially important supernatural dictations to mankind should … not originally have been made available in a single universal and unambiguous language.”
    That’s explained in Genesis 11: But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

  25. jimroberts relays that the Lord said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

    Why did he have to actually go there? Who did he need to go with him to give him help?

    So many questions.

  26. docbill1351

    If you look at the FTC filings you’ll see that God is a major stockholder in Rosetta Stone.

    Makes perfect sense.

  27. Right, so the Holey Babel, with all its cunningly contrived linguistic elusiveness, is another subtle weapon in Yahweh’s armoury with which to sow discord and conflict among those uppity Babylonians and their descendants?

  28. Tom Rowland

    Goodness – where to begin…?

    Let’s start with the good Rev. Simmons of the Halegueno (Holy-guano??? anyone else sniff a “Poe” here???) Street Church, trying to make a point in favor of his argument:
    “If the Bible is not God’s word, if it is just so many myths and fables, if it contains merely the subjective thoughts and impressions of fallible men, we may ignore it with impunity”

    As my professor in Elementary Symbolic Logic used to remind us: if you construct a logically valid argument using invalid assumptions your semantic value is still zero. The good Rev. should probably get out a little more and test those assumptions a bit more thoroghly before going all-in (as Steve Ruis was so kind to point out).

    The good Rev. also trots out the timeless canard about “{t}he fossil record has produced no intermediate forms, no missing links.”

    Perhaps he should review this debate between the Evilutionist Professor Farnsworth and the “Creaturist” Dr. Banjo:

    (sorry about the reversed image and sound, but you get the idea…)

    Game, Set and Match to Evilution ™

  29. Tom Rowland

    SC –
    Don’t know if the embed above is acceptable (don’t want you violating your terms of use) – meant to put it as a straight link. Please correct if necessary (’cause the video is hilarious)…
    Thanks!

  30. Tom Rowland says: “Don’t know if the embed above is acceptable”

    The link works. No problem.