Creationist Wisdom #469: Proof Demanded

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Shropshire Star, the fifth biggest-selling regional evening newspaper in Britain. It’s published in Ketley, a suburb of Telford, which is in Shropshire. Shropshire residents are called “Salopians.”

The letter is titled Science must provide proof if evolution is to be believed. That’s a powerful title, and the letter won’t disappoint you.

We don’t embarrass letter-writers by using their full names, unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures. Today’s writer is an active stamp collector, but he doesn’t seem to be prominent otherwise. We’ll use only his first name, which is Richard. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

If evolution is correct, please supply us with the absolute proof – not just some circumstantial evidence which may or may not be true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Richard should take a look at Where’s the Proof — Evolution’s “Smoking Gun”? We had him in mind when we wrote it. This is what Richard is demanding:

Please explain how living life appeared out of nothing. Evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals. Now even a single cell is amazingly complex. Where is the proof that it just formed itself on its own?

Richard is obsessed with claims evolution theory doesn’t make. Speaking of which, this is his next demand:

And where did the spirit that is different but in each living animal come from?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What’s he asking about — Vitalism? Let’s read on:

Then we have the alleged evolving of new species out of other species. Where is the proof of this? Since there are no known examples of creatures jumping the species barrier the whole idea seems rather far-fetched.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Verily, it is written in flaming letters that No Species Can Cross the Great Barrier. Richard is dancing what we call the micro-macro mambo, discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. He continues:

Of course some evolving occurs in species – it is nature’s way of ensuring creatures adapt to changing conditions. Humans have got taller over the years but no-one suggests we are involving into a new human species.

That’s true. No one suggests that we’re becoming Homo altus. Here’s more:

Biblical scripture is not anonymous, Genesis was written by Moses on Devine [sic] revelation by the one true God Yahweh.

Yeah, okay, Richard. What else have you got for us?

Belief in Biblical Creation is largely a matter of faith, but in the absence of a credible alternative, it is the only viable possibility.

Lordy, lordy. He says that after demanding “absolute proof” from us. This guy is amazing! Moving along:

The hundreds of prophecies in the Bible of events in the future which have all come true in their time suggests belief in the Bible is not misplaced.

Uh huh. Don’t stop now, Richard. Tell us more!

Finally, it is true some Christians do not believe in Creation. How they square this with their faith is beyond my understanding. Even Jesus supported what Moses had written.

Well, that settles it then. And now we come to the end:

If God could not create life He would not be much of a God, would he.

Hey, that last point is one we haven’t seen before. Richard, we salute you. Your letter is one of the best we’ve seen.

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

25 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #469: Proof Demanded

  1. Aaah, two letters from the UK this week alone. Maybe it’s time I left Muddy Island for somewhere more sane, like the southern states of the US

  2. Diogenes Lamp

    A comment from the newspaper:

    “You are talking cobblers of the highest order.”

    It’s like a Family Guy satire of UK slang.

  3. Re “Biblical scripture is not anonymous, Genesis was written by Moses on Devine [sic] revelation by the one true God Yahweh.” It had to be divine revelation because otherwise how could Moses have kept writing after his death (described in Genesis)?

    Re “If God could not create life He would not be much of a God, would he.” Well, you’ve convinced me. That’s it for Yahweh. Next!

  4. @Steve Ruis
    The death (burial, and subsequent status) of Moses are described in the final chapter of Deuteronomy (the last of the five Books of Moses, traditionally written by Moses – yes, by tradition, for the books are written anonymously – and there are, by the way, plenty of other ways that these books don’t look like something written by Moses).

  5. If a god cannot dictate such a clear account of his accomplishments that all his creatures can agree perfectly on what it says, he can’t be much of a god, can he?

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    I was hoping that the misspelling Devine, would point to a John Waters character, which would be beyond funny. Alas she/he is spelled Divine. I insert the picture from Wikipedia just for the yucks, if this was our god (complete with ‘Heaven’ tshirt:

  7. @ Charles Deetz: That would have been wonderful, but the TRVTH is scarcely less impressive, viz., the word was passed directly to Moses by Andy Devine

  8. Our Curmudgeon points out

    Shropshire residents are called “Salopians.”

    Also note, that alumni of Shrewsbury School (located in Shropshire), are called Old Salopians, and among their number may be found Charles R. Darwin, FRS (who was already a Salopian by virtue of his birth in Shropshire).

  9. Megalonyx reminds us:

    Shropshire residents are called “Salopians.”

    Words that rhyme with Salopian are: cornucopian, fallopian, Ethiopian, and Utopian.

  10. There once was a great Old Salopian,
    Whose theory was so cornucopian,
    That nothing made sense
    In that theory’s absence
    Except to crazed schemers Utopian.

  11. Derek Freyberg

    On the bright side, although RIchard may have problems with reality, almost all the comments are critical of his letter. I can easily imagine that a similar letter in parts of the US wouldn’t draw such a lopsided response.

  12. Richard says “Finally, it is true some Christians do not believe in Creation. How they square this with their faith is beyond my understanding. Even Jesus supported what Moses had written.”

    Well, I’ll be! We’ve discovered the one True Christian!

  13. Can Ya prove to me that Moses is even real…CAN YOU SHOW ME HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE??? CanYa??? I think NOT!!!

  14. Before I even read the post, let alone the letter of “wisdom,” I am going to make a bold accusation. I may not have much evidence, but you all will admit that it’s still a lot more than any evolution-denier has. Ready?:

    SC is a man-hater.

    There, I said it. The polls clearly show that women are slightly more likely than men to deny evolution. But look at the names of the authors of the nearly 500 “wisdoms” that SC has located for our entertainment. About 95% men! And look at all the activists he writes about: Ham, Rives, Luskin, Comfort… See the pattern?

    SC has some ‘splainin’ to do 😉

  15. @Mark Germano
    But Jesus never referred to the New Testament, and, I dare say, never read it.
    A True Christian reads all of the Bible.
    Preferably the King James Version.

  16. Frank J, creationist women’s husbands don’t allow them to write letters to editors. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. C’mon — everyone knows that.

  17. @RSG, ideally they don’t read or write, either, but somehow them womenfolk sneak in some learnin’, dagnabbit.

  18. I read somewhere that there is a Salopian Solipsism Society. They don’t know how many members they have, because they figure there really is no point in taking attendance…

  19. @MG: Well, yes, that would also explain the paucity of female creationist letters. Both factors are at work here, most likely.

  20. “If evolution is correct, please supply us with the absolute proof – not just some circumstantial evidence which may or may not be true. . . . Belief in Biblical Creation is largely a matter of faith, but in the absence of a credible alternative, it is the only viable possibility.”

    I see. Lord God almighty, I see! So evolution, for which there is actual evidence, can’t be accepted without absolute proof, but Creation, for which there is none, must be accepted without it.

    The hundreds of prophecies in the Bible of events in the future which have all come true in their time suggests belief in the Bible is not misplaced.

    One could make the same claim for Nostradamus, but creationists would rather see his prophecies consigned to the flames. It’s all in how creatively one “literally” reads the text. If one were to actually read the Revelation of St. John the Divine, fundamentalists’ favorite end-of-the-world prophecy book, literally, one would have to conclude that forty years in exile all alone on Patmos had turned St. John into a raving nutter. True believers, however, understand that in such cases “literally” doesn’t mean literally, and the hypocrisy of their position completely escapes them.

  21. Doctor Stochastic

    But without the Revelation of St John, we wouldn’t have had Valentino’s Tango or Rockne’s Teams.

  22. > Richard asserts: “If God could not create life He would not be much of a God, would he.”
    —————-
    Yahweh cannot cure cancer or regrow limbs in amputees. He can’t feed the starving. He can’t stop terrorism. Not much of a god, is he? Hmmm – I wonder what that implies?

  23. One should not mock the afflicted. Nevertheless, Richard’s slightly wonky grasp of syntax (which, as everyone knows, is a duty you have to pay the government when you do something naughty) makes necessary a correction:

    “And where did the spirit that is different but in each living animal come from?”

    should read:

    “And where is the spirit that is different but in each living animal?”

    Where, indeed?

  24. retiredsciguy: “Frank J, creationist women’s husbands don’t allow them to write letters to editors. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. C’mon — everyone knows that.”

    Maybe in some cases, but I think most of you are stuck in the 60s with the stereotype of fundamentalist/creationists. This is the age of Denyse O’Leary, Nancy Pearcey, and “neocon” husbands that like their heavy metal and don’t mind being the “first dude” to a “going rogue” Sarah Palin type. So I think my hypothesis is at least more contemporary, if not necessarily more accurate: Which is that men who write those letters-to-the-editor do it, consciously or not, to impress women. I think also that most men who do that, do it only once, and retreat when they are hit by that 2×4 of comments that shows how much they got wrong. The minority that responds with a 2nd, defensive letter or comment has, IMHO, made the “transition” from scammed to scammer.

  25. James St. John: “Yahweh cannot cure cancer or regrow limbs in amputees. He can’t feed the starving. He can’t stop terrorism. Not much of a god, is he? Hmmm – I wonder what that implies?”

    But if He’s God, He can do that, and just chooses not to, for whatever reason. What boggles my mind is how some committed theists have reconciled that, yet just can’t bear the thought that God made them biological cousins to their pet dog or cat that they love more than they love most people.