Creationist Wisdom #510: Smart Lady

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the New Jersey Herald of Newton, New Jersey. The letter is titled Christian God not part of evolutionary agenda. There’s a comments section at the end.

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

As one who takes Genesis as a “literal, historical account,” I must come to Mr. Lally’s defense.

We don’t know what Mr. Lally said or why it needs defense, but we’ve learned something about Marilyn. Then she says:

Raised on the “theory” of evolution, which is taught as indisputable doctrine in our schools, it should be noted that more and more scholars are recognizing the validity of a young-earth creation. Trying to fit old-earth evolution into Christianity is like attempting to put a square peg into a round hole.

She was taught evolution as “indisputable doctrine”? Sure she was. And somehow she’s noticed that “more and more scholars are recognizing the validity of a young-earth creation.” Marilyn has a loose definition of “scholar.” And how about that “square peg into a round hole”? Very creative writing! Let’s read on:

The fundamentals of both Christianity and Judaism rest on the fact that the universe, earth and all life were created in a six-day (real days) time frame. Prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, there was no death. Eden was perfection.

Yes, more and more scholars agree. She continues:

The fact that fossils have been found of animals eating other animals, as well as the fact these animals themselves are dead, proves that they existed post-Eden.

Right. All fossils are less than 6,000 years old. Their very existence proves it! Here’s more:

Much later came the Great Flood, covering the Earth. Fossils are generally found in rock layers all over the earth, which would corroborate this.

Right — all those layers with fossils are proof of the Flood. But what about layers without fossils? See Can Noah’s Flood Explain Banded Iron Stripes? Moving along:

Evolution requires a faith in what can’t be proven. The “Big Bang Theory” is rather amusing, as it assumes that matter suddenly came into being, contrary to all laws of physics which hold that matter can change, but cannot be created from a vacuum.

Uh, Marilyn, no one says matter was created from a vacuum. It was energy, Marilyn, which doesn’t violate any law of physics. Ah well, here’s another excerpt:

We, who believe in our creator as the true beginning, have faith in our book which, in spite of the efforts of non-believing archeologists and paleontologists to disprove what he has done, has risen above their efforts.

Marilyn’s book has risen above your puny efforts, dear reader. And now we come to the end:

Those who wish to put their faith in the religion of macro-evolution — it’s a free country. But Christians who try to squeeze God into a theory espoused by a secular world will find that our God is way too big to be a little chess piece in the evolutionary agenda.

Yeah. You and your “evolutionary agenda” can’t get anywhere with Marilyn. She knows too much to be fooled!

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

25 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #510: Smart Lady

  1. How does someone get a worldview like this?

  2. The “more and more…” meme is one of the oldest claims of the YEC contingent, as Glen Morton pointed out some time ago. It is particularly short-sighted of this person to make such an easily falsified claim.

  3. michaelfugate

    notice that she says scholars not scientists and especially not biologists…

  4. Uh, Marilyn, no one says matter was created from a vacuum. It was energy, Marilyn, which doesn’t violate any law of physics.

    I’m not sure I fully understand you here. I’m actually pretty okay with the notion that you can get energy from a vacuum (thanks, Lawrence Krauss!); since matter and energy are essentially interchangeable, this would imply that you can get matter from a vacuum too. Marilyn is saying that you can’t get anything from a vacuum; quibbling about matter vs energy seems to be beside the point.

    Of course, ideas about stuff appearing from nowhere become more problematic if you eschew the notion of the multiverse. I’m not sure I could comprehend (to the very limited extent that I do!) the concept of the Big Bang without that of the multiverse as underpinning. Seeing as Quantum Theory seems to predict a similar scenario, I don’t think I’m in poor company.

  5. According to quantum mechanics, and this has now been confirmed by direct, observable, repeatable experimentation, matter can appear out of a vacuum.

    As long as she is declaring that the Bible is literally inerrant on matters of science, it is fair to point out that the Bible says that the Earth does not move, and the Sun makes a daily path around the Earth.

    As far as God being too big to fit in the constraints of evolutionary biology, that is also true of reproductive biology. . . . And plumbing.

  6. Dave Luckett

    It’s not that their “God is way too big to be a little chess piece”. It’s that He’s too small. This is a God that must work in short amounts of time, by simple and immediate fiat. He’s a God that fits into small frames – a book, a week – in a world in which a couple of millennia is “a long time”. It’s a God concerned with a single people in a single small region of the land surface of a single planet, a God who goes walking in a garden in the cool of the evening – so this God is to be found in a particular place at a particular time. It’s a God who either doesn’t know what’s happened, or wishes to lie about His knowledge. It’s a little God, a petty God, a jealous God – why, He says that last Himself.

    It’s a God who fits a human scale – their scale – perfectly. It’s a God in their image, with all their temporal, intellectual and emotional constraints. It is, in fact, them.

  7. Yipes! The list of things creationists such as Marilyn know absolutely nothing about is astonishingly long. In her short essay to the New Jersey Herald, she demonstrates total ignorance of physics, biology, archeology, paleontology and more.

  8. In addition to Realthog: it might be very well be the case that the total sum of matter/energy in our universe is exactly zero.
    Not that Marilyn has the faintest idea about laws of physics – the Big Bang follows directly from the same theory that makes her GPS work so nicely.

  9. Tripp in Georgia

    This is a good letter! Marilyn wants to announce and describe her ignorance of the world to the public while imagining that she IS a smart lady! She read the old book of tales!

    It’s a service to us that New Jersey Herald lets us know what these kinds of people are up to and how they ‘think.’

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    Once again proof of my theory that those who write these letters have never delved into an online discussion on creation, where they’d get at least up a level or two of facts and rhetoric. They’ve read a thing or two online at a ministry of some sort, followed Ken Ham on Facebook, and think they are smart. Look I’ve found a video of her on Youtube asking an important question.

  11. Orchardist156

    I just think its really nice that seriously deranged people have the opportunity to talk about their delusions publicly.

  12. anevilmeme asks, “How does someone get a worldview like this?”

    We should also ask, “Why do newspapers continue publishing letters like this?”

  13. Dave Luckett has described this god so well.
    Marylin attempts at creativity failed. I have passed many a square pegs through round holes

  14. Ah, RSG is a real pope – defends freedom of speech, but there ought to be restrictions. Fortunately Orchard already has answered his question.

  15. At least once a week, I have to open up our Dyson and pull a Lego out of it. Take it from me, it is nearly impossible to get matter out of a vacuum.

  16. Ah, Mark G, that’s a false analogy. Neither with Big Bangs nor with electron-positron creation are external forces involved.

  17. Behold our opposition. They ain’t bright but they have the numbers.

  18. Well I can truly see why many people would believe her. The psychotically delusional do believe what other psychotically delusional have to say.
    But I will not agree to anything until she or others of her type can use there BS to produce something as useful as a simple ink pen.

  19. >Raised on the “theory” of evolution, which is taught as indisputable doctrine in our schools, it should be noted that more and more scholars are recognizing the validity of a young-earth creation. Trying to fit old-earth evolution into Christianity is like attempting to put a square peg into a round hole.

    Er . . . maybe that’s true of fundamentalist Christianity and its “scholars” (I notice she didn’t say “scientists”), but not any other sort. Even the Vatican, which took until the 19th century to take Galileo’s work off its list of forbidden books, accepts evolution (however reluctantly).

    But then, fundamentalists think they’re the only “real” Christians anyway. They only accept Catholics because they need the Vatican’s money and political support in fighting abortion, and they’re not crazy about Mormons. (Outside Christianity, they only tolerate Jews on account of their presumed role in end-times prophecy, and as for everyone else, they’d wipe them off the face of the planet if they could.)

  20. I have read, and I hope it’s true, that the “square peg round hole” analogy was first used in a manual on marriage.

  21. @jimroberts
    The earliest example of “square peg round hole” attested in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1836 about British politics, something about Sir Robert Peel and Lord somebody.

  22. I suppose I must be a potential creationist – I didn’t check it myself for fear that my dream would be shattered (:

  23. Oops 😦 , (:

  24. The fact that fossils have been found of animals eating other animals, as well as the fact these animals themselves are dead, proves that they existed post-Eden.

    Only if you already accept that Eden existed, of course, and that there was a Fall, and that before that Fall all animals, even, yes, lions and tigers and bears, oh my, were vegetarians. But if you accept all that from the start, you don’t need any “proof”; and if you don’t, the existence of predation and death rather hints that Eden in a myth.

    Creationists whine, “Show me a monkey turning into a man.” I answer, “Show me the remains of a vegetarian tiger.” But, oh, oops, they can’t, because for the transgressions of Adam and Eve, we’re told, the entire natural world was punished with death and with killing for food. There aren’t any vegetarian-tiger fossils because no tigers died until after the Fall, when they had been transformed into carnivores. How convenient.

  25. @Eric Lipps
    If we can trust our ability to infer the existence of a designer from the eyes, beak, claws and wings of a falcon, then we can trust our ability to infer that those are designed for predation. And if those are not the sort of things which can micro-evolve after creation, then the falcon must have been designed with predation to be expected from the beginning.