Creationist Wisdom #505: Can’t Fool This Guy

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Midland Daily News of Midland, Michigan. It’s the first letter of a few that are on the same page, and it’s titled Show me. There’s a comments section at the end.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t use his full name. His first name is Ron. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

H-m-m-m, from what I know, the “Theory of Evolution” still has that assignment to it. I have never seen anyone of “authority” or “with credentials” credit this “theory” as “fact!” Please list their names and documents of proof.

Ron points out that evolution is still “assigned” to the theory bin. He craves an authority who will proclaim it a fact. Hey, Ron: theories never get “promoted” to facts. But you might take a look at Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.

Ron then says:

According to some people, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and the Apostle Paul are all “fictional persons” and the person of God and Jesus Christ are just as fictional. Yet, their writings have survived centuries. These men claim that all lived with, talked in person to, and saw him do many miracles, etc. Usually, “fiction” dies out, so’s this survival seems strange to me, eh?

Ron says fiction usually dies out. Yet the Hindu religion is considerably older than Christianity and their writings are still very much with us. Does that mean they’re factual? Let’s read on:

Some claim “facts” are available to the contrary of Biblical writings, etc. They list scientists, palentologists and all sorts of generic sources; yet name none of them quote documents, show pictures or have photos showing animals, persons or whatever in the evolutionary state of being, such as part monkey/part man, part anything of anything!

There aren’t any photos of things that happened in the bible either, but we’ll overlook that. Ron continues:

Humans have been digging for centuries and have never come up with a fossil, or anything resembling or proving “The Theory of Evolution.”

Good point, Ron! Here’s more:

Strange, that person frozen in that Italian mountain receding glacier was said to be 5,000 years old. They claim that he had blonde hair, blue eyes, and his ‘human form’ was exactly like ours today and if alive today, would be no different than any of us walking down main street today. What a coincidence, eh??

That’s probably a reference to Ötzi, a/k/a Ötzi the Iceman, described by Wikipedia as ” a well-preserved natural mummy of a man who lived around 3,300 BCE … . .” His hair color isn’t mentioned, but his DNA must have been intact because it says his eyes were brown. Regardless of the eye color, why does Ron think a European from 5,000 years ago wouldn’t look like a European today? He doesn’t say. He doesn’t say much of anything, really. Here’s the last of his letter:

As Harry Truman always said, “Show me!”

That’s a great conclusion to a great letter!

Copyright © 2015. 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

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #505: Can’t Fool This Guy

  1. He needs to be reminded that the Show Me state is Missouri, not Michigan.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    How can I show him anything while he has his head up his [redacted]??? This guy needs an Evolution 101 class, even if he doesn’t believe a word that’s taught in it. I’d do better trying to talk about the football playoffs.

  3. Ron implores, “Show me!”

    He’s already “shown us” just how ignorant he is of science. Here’s another guy asking us to give him a tuition-free education who’s not willing to make any effort to gain knowledge on his own.

    Do some reading, Ron, and come back when you can understand the rudiments of evolution.

    “Part monkey/part man”? You gotta be kidding me!

  4. “show pictures or have photos showing animals ….. in the evolutionary state of being”
    Ron obviously hasn’t ever visited your blog, SC. You have placed several photos of AAAARGGHH!, who’s totally in the evolutionary state of being, part grey wolf, part something undefined yet.

  5. Some claim “facts” are available to the contrary of Biblical writings, etc. They list scientists, palentologists and all sorts of generic sources; yet name none of them quote documents, show pictures or have photos showing animals, persons or whatever in the evolutionary state of being, such as part monkey/part man, part anything of anything!

    Groan. The old ‘show me a monkey turning into a man” routine. As I keep explaining to creationists I encounter, if we could, it wouldn’t be evolution at work. (I usually don’t even bother explaining that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor rather than the former giving rise t the latter. They wouldn’t understand or accept it anyway.)

    Humans have been digging for centuries and have never come up with a fossil, or anything resembling or proving “The Theory of Evolution.”

    “Never come up with a fossil”? I really don’t know what to say about this one. Even most creationists acknowledge that fossils exist, though they dismiss hominid fossils as fakes produced either by eeeee-volutionists or by Satan orinsist that the fossils are the remains of people and animals drowned in the Flood.
    I propose that the Lebon Prize in biology, for complete ignorance and stupidity, be awarded to this guy: picture a gold-plated dunce cap.

  6. This guy has apparently never learned how to google.

  7. Eric Lipps says: “Groan. The old ‘show me a monkey turning into a man” routine.”

    At that point, I should have posted a pic of a penguin with its wings-flippers extended.

  8. Pete Moulton

    Or, maybe a link to the Tiktaalik song…

  9. I’ve noticed the creationists always go demanding that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists dig up mythical beasts but completely ignore almost anything else (plants, bacteria, fungi, lichen, protists, etc). Is it because these are taxa aren’t publicized as much (not as sexy) or is it because they simply don’t know enough biology to demand that evolution produce chimeras of two families? Perhaps it is because these other taxa show such superior evolvability to animals, having vastly larger effective populations and reproductive rates, that the creationists conveniently ignore them in their demands. Of course I’m talking good old fashioned boot stompin’, rafter raisin’, floor shakin’ young earth creationism – outside of animalia the IDiots only care about their precious bacterial flagella and chloroquine resistance.

    Now that I think of it, it would be hilarious if one of our lovely editorial contributors wrote letters demanding paleobotanists show them a half-moss/half-aster. Or maybe a half-oak/half-algae. Plant evolution (and everything else – I’m a botanist so I have strong bias) is so obvious that I think they lock their sights on friendly, familiar animals just so they can keep themselves convinced that evolution is as much hokum as the bible they desperately cling to.

  10. Another backwater town newspaper with no journalistic standards publishes the droolings of a moron. News at 11.

  11. Sean, I think it’s partly that they don’t think about those taxa or because, as has been my experience with some, that the “lower” taxa present a real problem.

    There are a lot of plants that are between taxa in a rather neat order of ascension. I’ve mentioned before that it was actually linguistics and astronomy that pulled me out of creationism, but when it came to the biological sciences it was really botany (specifically dendrology) that held me there.

  12. The letter writer who started with, “Hmmmmmm, ” reminds me of someone.

    Who could it be? Who could it be?

    Oh, now I remember! The PhD thesis that starts:

    “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.”

  13. The whole truth

    I’m convinced that the biggest problem creationists have with evolution is the evolution of humans, and specifically the evolution of humans from ‘ape’-like ancestors and other ‘lower’ life forms. Creationists see themselves as special, exceptional, superior, and ‘God’-like.

    Look at this part of the creobot’s letter to the editor:

    “…show pictures or have photos showing animals, persons or whatever in the evolutionary state of being, such as part monkey/part man, part anything of anything!”

    At a glance it appears that he is thinking about all life forms but he specifically said “part monkey/part man”. THAT shows what REALLY bugs him. I strongly feel that if evolutionary theory and all talk about evolution were focused only on the evolution of life forms other than humans, and that if humans were put into their own ‘specially created in the image of God’ category by scientists, creationists would be MUCH less against evolutionary theory or would not be against it at all.

  14. If one were to adopt the low ‘standards’ of the Discovery Institute (and I do not advocate one should do so), then the headlines today should be reading “Creationist terrorist thugs murder 12 in Paris.” Except: that would still be far more accurate than the DI’s fallacious old ‘No Darwin, No Hitler’ schtick.

    JE SUIS CHARLIE–comme Monsieur Darwin…

  15. “part monkey/part man”
    I can beat that: I personally am fully (old world) monkey and fully man, and I will throw in ape for good measure.

  16. @The whole truth
    I have the feeling that the main problem with evolution is that it is that it is distasteful to be physically related to apes, particularly because it is so obviously so. (I think of the way that adolescents don’t like to be reminded that they are related to their parents.)
    It wasn’t that long after “On the Origin of Species” that the monkey cartoons appeared (even though Darwin deliberately avoided the topic). And the famous Wilberforce-Huxley exchange.