Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana, the gateway to Glacier National Park. It’s titled What evolution doesn’t explain. There’s a comments section at the end.
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 Mike. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Derek Brouwer’s article about House Bill 321 (reprinted in the Inter Lake) is proof in itself that there is controversy about the origin of life. And he presents a very one-sided argument against critical thinking on that subject.
This is the article that has Mike so upset: Anti-evolution’ bill would protect HS teachers who teach creationism. It criticizes the creationism bill sponsored by Clayton Fiscus that we wrote about here: Montana Creationism: New Bill for 2015. The article uses the same photo of Fiscus that we used, from the Montana legislature’s website.
Mike claims that opposition to the Fiscus bill is proof that there’s a scientific controversy. The same could be said about the “scientific controversy” over The Time Cube. In defense of the bill and his intellectual hero, Clayton Fiscus, Mke says:
Since the origin of life is a one-time event that happened in the past, there is no way to prove scientifically, one way or the other, how it happened. All we have is evidence in the present.
Yup — all we have is what we see today. Cosmology, geology, and evolution are bunk. Let’s read on:
Both evolutionism and creationism are interpretations of the same evidence.
Evolutionism? As we’ve remarked before: Why the double suffix? Does that put the theory in grave danger? Two can play that game. How about calling creationism creationism-ish-ness? Mike continues:
To determine the validity of any interpretation requires seeing just how well it fits with the evidence we see and can reproduce using the scientific method.
Aaaargh!! As we’ve pointed out before, science does not require the recreation of past events. No one is going to do another Big Bang, and no one is going to re-create the Earth’s biosphere. Oh wait — Mike wrote a wee bit carelessly. He said that we’re required to “reproduce using the scientific method.” That sounds like fun. Here’s more:
For example, how does evolution explain the existence of matter, energy, space, time or information? It has no explanation.
How does evolution explain those things? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And observe, dear reader, that Mike regards “information” as one of the basic components of the universe. Moving along:
How does evolution explain the origin of life?
It doesn’t. Here’s another excerpt:
Spontaneous generation through chemical processes (abiogenesis) has been debunked years ago, yet still continues to be taught in biology texts.
Aaaargh!! That’s one of the classic creationist fantasies. It’s debunked in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims here: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the “law of biogenesis” — that life comes only from previous life. On with Mike’s letter:
How can there be carbon 14 in diamonds? How can there be well-preserved soft tissue in a T-Rex bone?
Aaaargh!! The diamond argument comes from the Institute for Creation Research. Panda’s Thumb wrote about it here: Diamonds Aren’t Forever? And we wrote about the soft tissue argument in Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?
But Mike isn’t done yet. He’s a veritable encyclopedia of creationist clunkers. Here’s another:
Why are there (still) no undisputed transitional forms throughout the fossil record? These and other questions cast legitimate doubt on the “fact” of evolution.
Should we bother with that one again? Oh, why not — it only takes a couple of seconds. See Wikipedia’s list of transitional fossils. And now we come to the end:
If critical thinking isn’t allowed on all subjects, our children are being indoctrinated, not educated.
Huxley was known as Darwin’s bulldog, and Mike is playing the same role for Clayton Fiscus. What a team!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Being a creatard means he is a delusional religitard, and he has the gal to …’If critical thinking isn’t allowed on all subjects, our children are being indoctrinated, not educated.’ which is what they do in every church everywhere.
Its too bad they are not apply the same thinking to their own BS.
@L.Long, I was also looking to comment on that parting shot of Mikey. You almost want such a law to pass just to have the critical thinking process used against every one of his factoids he is throwing at evolutionism.
Our Curmudgeon proposes
I think a more accurate term would be Creationanity. Or maybe, Creationinanity
The creationism-ish-ness-itude in Montana should be worrisome to the rationally-minded folks there..
“For example, how does evolution explain the existence of matter, energy, space, time or information? It has no explanation.”
Good point. And while we’re at it, did you notice that the infield fly rule doesn’t even come close to explaining why New England/Germany won the Super Bowl/World Cup? Football is a hoax.
Fiscus’s Cockapoo?
And it isn’t required to, since it concerns itself with the origin of species, not tjhat of the universe.
the origin of these other entities is a contentious matter, but who’s to say they needed one? Maybe they’ve always existed, in one form or another. Asking that question is like asking “What’s the origin of God?”–except that you’ll get more hate mail for asking the second question.
Or Creatiollusionism, Creatiosity, Creationality, Creatiousness, Creatiolatarianism, Creatiolessness (as in Unmitigated…)
@Eric Lipps
How does one explain the existence of disorder, contingency, falsehood, excess, average?
Given that God created “kinds” (“baramins”), how does one explain the existence of species, kingdoms (that is, the animal kingdom, plants, and so on)?
I just fixed a typo one caught yet. I had used “roll” instead of “role.”
Same ol’ BSism. When will they come up with something new? On the lighter side, here’s something for the IDers and creationism-istas to ponder.
“http://theonion.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=bf78bfbcb73a006625be5e73b&id=b5c2ccc0fb&e=1cca6e6248.”
copy and paste if it dosen’t link.
[*Voice from above*] Try this: New Study Finds Majority Of God’s Blessings Burn Up On Entry Into Atmosphere
It looks like Mike has memorized and then regurgitated all of Hambo’s favorite insane arguments.
The Curmudgeon I just fixed a typo one caught yet. I had used “roll” instead of “role.”
Don’t brag too hard — you left out a key word. (“…typo no one caught…”)
Sadly, I wanted to comment Ficus’ “controversy” letter but couldn’t. I signed in but couldn’t post a comment. I was able to open a comment window for other stories but not to that one. There is one comment already there but no way to reply to that comment (which was critical of the letter) and no way that I could find to post a comment to the letter itself. What I’d composed was this:
Evolution is a fact. The jury is in, the case is closed. There are tons of outstanding questions about evolution. I can name more controversies that you can. But there is no controversy within science over the core propositions of evolutionary theory.
Actually, from the point of view of physics, information may actually be considered as THE fundamental component of the universe. Not that I support what is commonly called “creationism”, but he got that part right.
I think we need to offer a big and valuable (snark) prize to the first creationismist who comes up with a claim that hasn’t been debunked thousands of times.
Mike says:
SC says:
Ah, but you see, those aren’t undisputed transitionals- the game is that as long as creationists can find a reason, however specious, to dispute the science, there are gaps for them to exploit.
And that’s the methodology of woo (which is all creationism is). Many things are possible, fewer things are likely, and only one can be actually true. Science is a process of elimination by which, with testable evidence and reproducible experiments, the “many” is winnowed to the few (and, ideally, to the one). Woo like creationism is the process in deliberate reverse- gaps are exploited so the “many” can be maintained in order for the chosen woo to be clung to as still possible; a spurious equality between the likelihoods of science and woo is nurtured for the further feeding of the woo. “Science doesn’t know everything!” is the rallying cry for those who would rather believe anything than have their woo limited.
@aturingtest
Considering the disputability of fossils … Well, first of all, I would like to note that many people, not just creationists, think that the only evidence for evolution is the fossils. That evolution is only something that happened in the distant past. While evolution is ongoing, observed phenomenon, with multiple lines of evidence.
But anyway, I agree with you. And remember, when the gap between fossil forms is small enough that it would be absurd to reject – well, that’s microevolution. What is needed is a big gap transitional fossil which shows a small change – or is it the other? Whatever. Whatever you offer, it’s the wrong one.
TomS:
That’s true; creationists have purposely imposed on themselves such a narrowness of view that consilience becomes an inconvenient principle. The non-creationists who think the same are, literally (not as an insult), just ignorant. Education can fix that; but nothing can fix what is built to be broken.
Like Ron White says,” you cant fix stupid.”
Please write to the members of the education subcommittee and encourage them to kill HB 321.
many thanks to the Voice from above.