Creationist Wisdom #484: Biblical Law

Today’s letter-to-the-editor was written by a man who really understands things and who doesn’t hesitate to share his wisdom. His letter appears in the MetroWest Daily News of Framingham, Massachusetts, and it’s titled A disregard for biblical law. There’s a comments section at the end, showing only one comment at the moment.

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 Milton. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

It is apparent, regarding the homosexual lifestyle, you and your frequent columnist Eugene Robinson disregard the moral law from the God of the Bible. Could it be that the secular humanism you display in your editorials and columns deny the existence of such a One?

A provocative beginning! But we don’t think or write about the subject of Milton’s concern. Does he get around to creationism? Yes, he does — in the next sentence:

Acceptance of Darwinism, that a complex, biochemical, electromagnetic marvel as the human body could have come into existence by chance, is a delusion.

The human body is an “electromagnetic marvel”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And what does “acceptance of Darwinism” have to do with homosexuality? Let’s read on:

Sir Fred Hoyle computed the probability of one living cell occurring by chance on the earth as comparable to a whirlwind passing through a junkyard to produce a Boeing 747. A Darwinian atheist, he postulated the living cell of intelligent-design origin came from outer space!

We know all about Hoyle’s junkyard tornado. But we don’t see any connection to homosexuality. Milton’s letter continues:

In the 19th century the stated benefit of Darwinism was marginalization of the Creation account and removal of the biblical standard of sexual morality.

That was the “stated benefit of Darwinism”? Wow — it’s a free love cult! Whoopie! Here’s more:

God established marriage between a man and woman for procreation, blessed the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian woman, condemns sodomy (homosexuality) as an abomination and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it.

And that means what to us? Milton explains it:

All nations that ignore Him go down to the grave. But if we humble ourselves, seek His face and turn from our wicked ways, He promises to forgive our sins and heal our land. Isn’t the ballot box an appropriate starting place?

Good advice! The next time you get your electromagnetic carcass into a ballot box, check the “No” boxes for Darwinism and homosexuality. And don’t forget to check the “Yes” box for God. Milton’s last sentence is a bit of a puzzlement:

And read Washington’s First Inaugural Address: The colonies won independence getting, after seeking, God’s help.

We’ve read it. You can read it too: Washington’s First Inaugural Address. Washington said lots of vaguely Deistic things, like:

No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

Washington was a splendid product of the Enlightenment, and he obviously read Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776.) His use of Smith’s “invisible hand” phrase in a deistic context is a nice rhetorical flourish. But whether Washington would agree with anything today’s letter-writer says is a question we’ll leave to you, dear reader.

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

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #484: Biblical Law

  1. WOW! What a beautiful example of stoopid!!
    1-All nations that ignore Him go down to the grave.
    strange how Rome was a world power when controlled by the sometimes homo pagans, and was destroyed when the righteous xtians took over.
    2-Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it…
    hey!! dim read your buyBull again. The places were not destroyed for homo reasons. Gawd decided to destroy it BEFORE the angles were there. Read it some more. And you may find the real reason.

  2. Sir Fred Hoyle computed the probability of one living cell occurring by chance on the earth as comparable to a whirlwind passing through a junkyard to produce a Boeing 747. A Darwinian atheist, he postulated the living cell of intelligent-design origin came from outer space!
    Fred Hoyle’s a poor choice to quote, since he has ended up on the wrong side of nearly every major scientific controversy of the past sixty years. from “continuous creation” vs. the “big bang” onward.

    In fairness to him, his argument about the cell is often misunderstood. After all, if the emergence of life by natural means is effectively impossible on Earth, then it’s effectively impossible anywhere–yet Hoyle didn’t say that.

    Moreover, arguing that the emergence of life from nonlife “by chance” is impossible is dishonest, since evolutionists do not claim it occurred purely at random but rather that it happened as a result of chemical reactions constrained by natural law and, later, by natural selection acting on the earliest living things. Creationists want their suckers, ahem, audiences to believe that evolutionists believe life emerged entirely without such constraints–something the more sophisticate among them surely know isn’t so, which means they are not merely wrong but actively lying.

  3. A point that is frequently missed is that evolution is not about the origin of life; that problem is dealt with under the heading of “abiogenesis”. The title of Darwin’s first book was “The Origin of Species”. Evolution deals with the CHANGES that have occurred, not how life originated. People who want to dismiss evolution by attacking the problem of origins are missing the point

  4. Don’t anyone tell Milton that Washington was a Deist poor Milty’s head may explode.

  5. Doctor Stochastic

    “Chance” or “random” need not be about a uniform distribution.

  6. I don’t think the guy has a clue what he believes. The commenter seems to be pretty harsh also. Like maybe he was butt raped in prison or something.

  7. michaelfugate

    The grave is the destination of us all – believing in gods won’t change that…..

  8. No one is more obsessed with the “homosexual lifestyle” than a fundie.

  9. That’s right! It’s all the fault of those darn kids disregarding Biblical Law by wearing cloth woven of two fibers. Why don’t you kids go put on a sheepskin, and while your are at it you can GET OFF MY LAWN!

  10. @anevilmeme
    One of the promoters of the “watchmaker” analogy was Voltaire!

    And, given that ID has nothing to say about anything needing the attention of designers once things were up to their specs – how many million years ago? – we wonder how different ID is different from Deism. (Or OED, and, except that the time scale is a bit shorter, YEC.)

  11. @TomS

    Deists believe a Supreme Being created the universe (multiverse?) and hasn’t interacted with it since. By default that seems to rule out ID.

    I’ve never met or heard of a deist that doesn’t accept modern science including the Big Bang and abiogenesis/evolution.

  12. @TA: and bicurious clothing is just the gateway to greater sin. Today, I saw some heathens eating shellfish. SHELLFISH!

  13. Charles Deetz ;)

    Do we need to repeat the biblical standards of sexual morality? Multiple wives, concubines, sex with your father, dissing a barren wife. One good morality tale (David) doesn’t make up for all that.

  14. @Eric: “… if the emergence of life by natural means is effectively impossible on Earth, then it’s effectively impossible anywhere–yet Hoyle didn’t say that.”
    I think Hoyle did believe that the emergence of life is effectively impossible. In his steady state universe, life has always been present and seeds new planets by arriving from space.

  15. @anevilmemeDeists believe a Supreme Being created the universe (multiverse?) and hasn’t interacted with it since. By default that seems to rule out ID.
    According to ID (insofar as one can say anything about ID) the Intelligent Designers are responsible for some complexities of life. Nothing in the last 100 million years or so. Or even if were responsible for the appearance of the species Homo sapiens were absent since.
    That sounds more like a Deist Supreme Being, their concern is not anything after getting things set up. Nothing personal about the Intelligent Designers. If a virus goes wild, that’s none of their concern.

  16. MG writes> “… SHELLFISH!”

    That pretty much says it all right there!

  17. @TomS
    In the 18th century, what needed to be explained was the mechanistic universe as revealed by Newton. The Judeo-Christian tradition could no longer adequately explain this, because there seemed to be no need for god’s will to keep it going. If one rejected the Judeo-Christian tradition, there were three possible explanations available at the time: something like the ‘junkyard tornado’ hypothesis, that random chance had brought it all together, which was the notion favored by precursor atheists/agnostics at the time; the notion that some agent ‘god’ (very loosely defined) had constructed it and set it into motion (deism); and Spinoza’s identification of ‘god’ with the universe itself (pantheistic deism). If one had been trained in Aristotelian metaphysics, which insists on the necessity of a First Cause, one would favor deism. (Some found Spinoza’s view tempting, but there isn’t much one can do with it in constructing metaphysical arguments for the mechanical universe, since any such argument will be a claim on the universe itself, and not on its presumed godhood.)

    As for the ‘junkyard tornado’ view, we should indeed ask why many early atheists/agnostics tended toward such a highly improbable explanation. The reason is that “highly improbable” does not mean “impossible.” If it could have happened that way, however unlikely, there is the possibility that it did happen that way.

    “If a virus goes wild, that’s none of their concern.” That’s true for deists, but not for current ID enthusiasts, who are religious determinists as regards nature. If the virus goes wild, that’s because the agent of the virus’ creation determined that it would go wild, to serve some greater purpose.

  18. I’d note that the 18th century deists were mostly concerned with there being no divine revelation. They did speak of Providence. There has been a shift in the view from no communication with us to no meaningful action.
    I’m not sure that ID has enough of a well-thought-out stance to have anything to say distancing themselves from deism. To be sure, they would say about deism, as well as anything else suggested by an outsider, “you don’t understand ID”.

    The one respectable atheistic view in the 18th century was based on atoms colliding randomly, as you say, “junkyard tornado”, Democritus through Epicurus.