Creationist Wisdom #479: Three Pillars of Truth

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the High Point Enterprise of High Point, North Carolina. The letter is titled ‘Cosmos’ attempts to counter intelligent design.

Yowie! It’s been months since we wrote about Cosmos: A SPACETIME ODYSSEY, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. We thought the series was great, but like everything else that offers people an opportunity to gain some knowledge, there are those who become (and remain) enraged that anyone would dare such a thing.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Clayton. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I’m responding to the renewed 13-part series “Cosmos” aired on U.S. television and around the world to counter creationism and intelligent design, but which has deepened the problems for evolution theory.

Lordy, lordy. This promises to be a great letter. We can’t stop now. Come on, Clayton, don’t hold back:

“Cosmos” was produced by Seth MacFarlane and hosted by Dr. Neil Tyson, both outspoken atheists. MacFarlane was asked by the Los Angeles Times what he was hoping to get out of “Cosmos.” MacFarlane replied, “We’ve had a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design ‘theory’. There’s been a real vacuum when it comes to science education.”

We haven’t checked that quote, but it’s probably true that since the original Carl Sagan series, there hasn’t been anything like it until the Tyson series came along. Does Clayton disagree? Let’s read on:

There has indeed been a real vacuum in scientific education created by the evolutionists themselves by substituting their three pillars of truth: imagination, speculation, and exaggeration instead of empirical (scientific) evidence.

We haven’t run across that “three pillars” claim before. Is it original with Clayton, or did he get it from come crazed creationist website? It doesn’t matter. He continues:

With the ever-increasing knowledge through modern technology in biology and all other disciplines of science, the evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design and also confirms the accuracy of the biblical record, resulting in many evolutionists’ renouncing their faith the evolution theory. It is poorly supported with real scientific evidence and is greatly exaggerated.

We don’t need to say anything about that paragraph. It speaks for itself. Here’s more from Clayton:

One excellent example of exaggeration is found in Tomoton Stiftung’s book “Pro Evo” which is mailed to college students and others. Pages 16-17 state “The evolution from hydrogen up to man can already be explained and proved. … The processes from hydrogen to protein can … already be reproduced in the laboratory.”

We’re not sure, but Clayton may be referring to this: Pro Evolution: Guideline for an Age of Joy (Amazon listing). We never heard of it, but Clayton doesn’t like it. Why? Stay with us:

The truth is that scientists have yet to produce the right combination of amino acids to produce just one favorable protein — the building blocks of a living cell.

Oh dear. That’s not quite true, Clayton. Well, nobody starts with hydrogen, but nevertheless, see, for example: Self-assembling anti-cancer molecules created in minutes. And Wikipedia discusses the subject: Protein biosynthesis. Anyway, now we come to the end:

One of the most fundamental laws of biological science is that life can only come from life itself; it cannot come from dead matter. The same is true of knowledge (intelligent design). In the beginning, God created …” (Genesis 1:1).

We’re grateful to Clayton because we had forgotten about that “most fundamental law” of science — uh, creation science, that is. We’re also grateful to be reminded that like every variety of creationism, intelligent design is ultimately inspired by Genesis. Great letter!

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

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #479: Three Pillars of Truth

  1. The same is true of knowledge (intelligent design). In the beginning, God created …” (Genesis 1:1).

    Obviously Clayton has no problem associating his “intelligent designer” with his deity, but that of course is a given unlike the mantra of the DI, and he yearns for the good old days of vitalism.

    But I was unaware of his fundamental law statement: “One of the most fundamental laws of biological science is that life can only come from life itself; it cannot come from dead matter.”

  2. I too, am unaware of the Fundamental Law – I must have been asleep or hungover during that lecture.

  3. It’s all very well running these effusions of tard here and laughing. Fair enough, I suppose; they are laughable, after all.

    But are they answered and derided in the forum that ran them? In this case, did someone write to the High Point Enterprise and, er, point out that Clayton was having a bit of a wander into the far side of the Twilight Zone? That what he confidently asserted as fact was actually a bit of a … well, let’s not call it a prevarication or a mis-statement, dear me no. That would be unjust. It was actually a GODDAM LIE.

    So, did anyone show up to tell the godly goobers of High Point, NC, that good ol’ Clayton, here, had done toll some stretchers? Like, as we say in my country, “pull the other one, sport, it plays Jingle Bells”.

    Yes? No?

  4. Derek Freyberg

    @Dave Luckett:

    I just checked and saw only two comments, one from 14 hours back, the other from 4 – both were critical, to say the least.

  5. From the Amazon comments, it’s pretty clear that “Pro-Evo” is the self-published work New-Age drivel, not mainstream science.

  6. Dave: “But are they answered and derided in the forum that ran them? In this case, did someone write to the High Point Enterprise and, er, point out that Clayton was having a bit of a wander into the far side of the Twilight Zone?”

    Yes, perhaps Curm’s readers should visit these far flung newspapers en masse and provide some “balance.”

    Curm, if you’re not too busy, when you nobly summarize these fascinating articles and letters in far flung newspapers, perhaps you could briefly note whether they permit open comments, and what comment system they use, Facebook, Disqus, etc.

  7. Diogenes Lamp requests: “perhaps you could briefly note whether they permit open comments, and what comment system they use, Facebook, Disqus, etc.”

    If I remember, I’ll try to note if there are comments that are visible at the publication. Beyond that, I donno.

  8. Doctor Stochastic

    Seems as if the ID-Creationist cult likes the ancient Greek vitalism principle.
    The Wöhler synthesis does show organic molecules coming from inorganic ones.

  9. Clayton wrote, “One of the most fundamental laws of biological science is that life can only come from life itself.” Well of course this is a fundamental law — it was dreamed up by a fundamentalist ! 🙂

  10. In re: life coming only from life. The Bible seems to deny that. See the story of Samson, where bees were generated in a dead lion’s carcass (Judges 14) and the saying that only if seeds die can they sprout to life (John 12:24). As well as several incidents in Egypt leading up to the Exodus.

  11. Life can only come from life?
    What then of In Genesis 2 God forms “Adam” (this time meaning a single male human) out of “the dust of the ground” ? Guess the bible and the deity are not aware of Clayton’s fundamental(ist) law.

  12. Actually, the principle that life cannot come from non-life is well established. However, it isn’t absolute. Flies aren’t spontaneously generated from rotting meat, as was once believed, but the chemicals of life, and life itself, can come from simple substances under the right conditions–which don’t happen to exist in nature on today’s Earth but which scientists are confident did exist on the primeval Earth.

    I await the day when a fertilized human egg is synthesized in the laboratory. (It probably won’t be for generations.) Will ID’ers call it a person, a hoax, or a demon?

  13. @Eric Lipps
    There is good reason to believe that the authors of the Bible accepted the seemingly obvious fact of spontaneous generation. Genesis 1 describes something like that, that the land and the waters generated living things.
    The coup de grace is considered to have been delivered by Pasteur, but I think that he was open to the idea that it did happen at the origins.
    One trouble with new life appearing today is that there are so many living things on the search for nutrients that any incipient new form would be easy pickings.

    When life is synthesized, that would be welcomed as demonstration that intelligent design can produce life. For some reason that escapes me, the fact that it has not been synthesized is considered as evidence for intelligent design.