Creationist Wisdom #446: Don’t Pity Me!

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — like so many others lately — appears in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia. It’s titled: Creationist says no pity needed on evolution.

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. We can’t figure out who today’s letter-writer is, so we’ll use only his first name, which is Philip. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his brief letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Philip begins by mentioning an earlier letter, to which he’s responding. He says:

Thanks to Marci Shaver for her June 19 letter, in which she writes, “When I read letters here where the writers revel in their ignorance, such as the recent letters denying evolution and climate change, I feel pity”

This is the second letter in our collection that is responding to Marci Shaver. We wrote about the earlier one here: Creationist Wisdom #434: A Duane Gish Fan.

Philip is responding to a later letter of hers — When I read letters here where the writers revel in their ignorance, such as the recent letters denying evolution and climate change, I feel pity. Philip is offended, and he tells us:

She rants against climate change deniers and evolution believers. Her hypothesis, however, is biased and in line with liberal talking points.

Good rebuttal! Skipping what he says about climate change, we arrive at Philip’s claims about evolution:

As for evolution, well, that’s also theory. Her body of evidence and the fossil record don’t show a conclusive link between species at the macro level; they mostly support micro evolution, small changes within species designed to adapt to current conditions.

Lordy, lordy — it’s the micro-macro mambo. We debunked that foolishness in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s read on:

As for Carl Sagan, well, to believe that everything around us and within the universe somehow appeared after the explosion of a golf ball-size object — well, that strains credulity.

Golf ball? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Philip continues:

She has her beliefs and I have mine.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! She also has evidence, Philip. What do you have? Oh, right — you don’t have anything, because reality strains your credulity. Here’s more:

I believe climate change happens, albeit naturally. I also believe in creationism rather than her theory of evolution.

Philip has his beliefs. Marci Shaver has reality. And now we come to the end:

I, and others like me, neither need nor want her pity.

Don’t worry, Philip. You’re a creationist. The Curmudgeon doesn’t pity you. We would first have to care what you think in order to feel pity. And we don’t.

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #446: Don’t Pity Me!

  1. As for Carl Sagan, well, to believe that everything around us and within the universe somehow appeared after the explosion of a golf ball-size object — well, that strains credulity.

    But to believe it all came from nothing when a pre-existing being spoke a few magic words (and “Shazam!” wasn’t even one of them!) makes perfect sense. At least it does to someone whose credibility can’t be strained because it’s already snapped.

  2. Pardon me, I meant “credulity.” But Philip’s credibility is pretty well shot too.

  3. Tripp in Georgia

    It hurts my brain when reality strains another person’s credulity and he tries to verbalize it.

    Ignorance seems simple, but really it is probably quite complex in humans.

  4. Current cosmology doesn’t talk about the size of the universe when expansion began to occur, only the density. For all we know, it is infinite. And if they object that something that is already infinite has no more room to expand, that’s even more fun.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    Philip says: “I, and others like me, neither need nor want her pity.
    Sounds fair enough. We don’t give any of you creationists our pity, and you don’t give your brains to any of us.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Hmmm, what is pity without a humbled recipient? Scorn!

  7. “Don’t worry, Philip. You’re a creationist… We would first have to care what you think in order to feel pity. And we don’t.”

    Just don’t demand that we teach your religion-induced willful ignorance in our schools. Oh — and where does it say in your Bible that it’s okay to defile this one planet we all share? In fact, doesn’t “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” speak to that? How does the Golden Rule allow us to risk this planet’s habitability for future generations? In your ignorance, you might think that mankind has nothing to do with climate change. Your thinking would be contrary to the understanding of 99%+ of all atmospheric scientists, but then, what do they know?

    I can understand how your adherence to a particular religious belief might keep you from accepting all the evidence supporting evolution, but I can’t fathom why you would deny that man could have anything to do with climate change. As I pointed out above, such denial is contrary to Christian ethics.

  8. Again we are seeing a regurgitation of worn thin talking points attempting to reinforce a logical exception that requires an emotional/spiritual experience to take priority over intellectual honesty.

    Are the people submitting these rebuttals committing a conscious denial of reality or unconsciously not wanting to be wrong? Are they attacking the cornerstones of science or defending their sense of self and community? Could someone’s want for affirmation lead them to acting out show and tell displays that could be called defending the faith or a testament of belief?

    The unforgiving nature of reality that draws people to mysticism won’t easily be counter balanced towards self honesty by simply showing people that they need to deal with the uncertainty we all face head on.

    Is the dialogue between scholarly knowledge and mysticism not taking into account the emotional experience that mysticism is? Religions provide a veritable swiss army knife of tools for people and cultures to find a comfort zone. How can we expect anyone who has individually or as a member of a culture to embrace what they have already rejected without providing a more comforting reality?

    I think it can be done, but as St.Augustine and behavioral biology teaches, not this generation.

  9. Dean wonders—

    Are the people submitting these rebuttals committing a conscious denial of reality or unconsciously not wanting to be wrong?

    I don’t think such people are necessarily out-and-out scammers. In fact, I think most of them are quite sincere in their delusions. It doesn’t help that places like AiG, ICR, CMI, DI, etc. are there to nurture, perpetuate and promote those delusions — by any means necessary, including underhanded ones. Their success is evident in people such as Philip who merely repeat all those stale anti-evolution canards.

    It seems to me that because religious beliefs are usually inculcated at a very young age, holding them is much more a habit than the upshot of critical appraisal. It’s akin to potty training of the child’s mind (where the potty is repeatedly emptied into the child’s mind). And the habits we acquired during early childhood, including our thinking habits, are among the more difficult ones to break. (A maxim, usually attributed to Ignatius of Loyola, springs to mind: “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man.”)

    With places like ICR and DI stridently providing sustenance in the form of convenient pseudo-justifications for those habitual thoughts, it’s no great mystery that the Philips of the world seize so eagerly upon them, writing outraged letters bursting with second-hand lies.

    Something else I find curious is that these letter-writers increasingly make statements along the lines of Philip’s above: “She has her beliefs and I have mine.” This is an expression of pure postmodern relativism. The funny thing about it is that it stands in stark contrast to the claims of absolute knowledge through revelation and faith that Philip’s religion has proclaimed a supreme virtue, one that Philip eagerly denies Marci. It’s another swig of that homebrewed cognitive dissonance.

  10. @Con-Tester: Nice essay.

  11. Thank You, Your Wholeness. Your praise is praise indeed. 😉

  12. @Con-Tester: That’s the nice thing about our Curmudgeon’s blog — his intelligent, interesting writing attracts a great community of intelligent, interesting writers. Thanks again, Curmy, for all your efforts. And here’s hoping that all of your States-side readers still have all their fingers and eyes now that it’s July 5.