Creationist Wisdom #518: Where’s the Evidence?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Cadillac News of Cadillac, Michigan. It’s titled Evolution, a bunch of hooey. 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 Don. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In a recent article in the Cadillac New’s [sic] about “Giant gap between what public and scientists think.” Among the 13 topics the article states that evolution is a scientific fact.

We haven’t found that article, but it’s not important. Then Don says:

Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS, stated, “Science is about facts. Science is not about values, and that the public does not know very much.” The article states that scientists say evolution is fact.

Here’s a recent article which has that quote from Leshner: Poll Shows Giant Gap Between What Public, Scientists Think. Let’s read on from Don’s letter:

While I was on a recent trip to Washington, D.C., I took a group of teens to see an IMAX movie about “Our Galaxies.” The movie ended with, “We can count our lucky stars because that is where we came from.” A bunch of brainwashing “hooey.” Where is the scientific evidence to prove that we evolved from stars?

Yeah, where’s the evidence? Don continues:

How does life “evolving” adapt to its environment, get changed into primordial slime turning into fish, birds, monkeys and humans? Talk about fairy tales. I choose to believe fact over fancy. And here are the facts.

Hey, hey — Don is going to give us the facts! Here they are (the ellipsis is in the original letter):

No species has ever morphed/changed into another species. If there were transitional fossils, our museums would have millions of exhibits. There has never ever been a transitional fossil found, despite the assumption that there must be countless “missing links”…they are not missing, because they were never there in the first place.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And he has still more facts:

Every half ape/half man has been thoroughly debunked either as pure fraud or bad “science.” Only life can produce life; non organic cannot become organic. Non-life to life has never been proven. If it were true, then why don’t we see non-life becoming living today? And why don’t we see species morphing into other species?

Don’s collection of facts is overwhelming! He ends with this, followed by an inspiring bible quote, which we’ll omit:

I don’t thank my “lucky stars” for my life, I thank God.

Great letter, Don! And it didn’t require any debunking, because it debunks itself.

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #518: Where’s the Evidence?

  1. “Don’s collection of facts is overwhelming!”
    Indeed – never has a BWAHAHAHAHA! been better in place. Don lifts the meaning of “self-defeating” to an entirely new level. Hors Categorie I say – this letter transcends Creationist Wisdom.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    What would Don say about the chart (wherever it is) lining up creationist analysis of hominids as either ape or human? At least it references people he would agree with, although in aggregate he wouldn’t like the resulting table.

  3. http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

    Creation Ministries International
    Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

    “No new species have been produced.” This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information—see Q&A: Speciation. Fixity of species was actually taught by Darwin’s anti-biblical mentor Charles Lyell.

  4. From the Louisiana Baptist University Chair on Advanced Baraminology.

  5. Come on, this has to be satire.

  6. Maybe Donnie boy has been looking in the wrong museums. And why is it that creationists harp on the fossil record, about which they clearly have no knowledge, when other areas, such as molecular genetics and comparative anatomy, provide overwhelming evidence of evolution without any reference to fossils. Oh, I forgot: they probably know nothing about those fields, either.

  7. abeastwood says:

    Maybe Donnie boy has been looking in the wrong museums.

    Or he’s looking in the right ones for the wrong thing. It’s pretty clear from what he says that he thinks “transitional fossil” means “half one thing, half another, in one animal.” The fact that that’s not even what transition means in this context is beyond him; there’s no place in the Universe According To Don for such a thing as “gradual.”

  8. aturingtest says:

    It’s pretty clear from what he says that he thinks “transitional fossil” means “half one thing, half another, in one animal.”

    He’s looking for a croc-o-duck. And he’s also looking for something like Dracula, that morphs into a bat. We don’t have any of those, so Darwin was wrong.

  9. The whole truth

    SC said: “nd he’s also looking for something like Dracula, that morphs into a bat. We don’t have any of those…”

    You haven’t met my ex-wife.

  10. Eddie Janssen

    It is impossible to defend the position that the earth and the universe are only 6000 years old with anything slightly resembling sanity.
    This should be made clear to Young Earth Creationists: their science denial equals (or tops) that of the Holocaust deniers or the Moonlanding crazies.

    ps: I am not quite sure whether Don is a YEC, I assume he is.

  11. The whole truth

    Don said: “I choose to believe fact over fancy.”

    Yeah, “fact” such as zombie jesus and saints walking around, a guy living inside a fish, goats and sheep giving birth to striped/spotted offspring because the adults mated while looking at striped sticks, a talking serpent, 900+ year old people, etc.

    Even though they’re not half one species and half another I’d like to see Don explain intersex people, gynandromorphs, and hermaphrodites from his creobot point of view, using only “fact”.

    http://heavy.com/social/2013/11/gynandromorphs-chimerism-animal-pictures-photos/1/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

  12. In addition to the examples mentioned in the Wikipedia article “Transitional fossil” there is a detailed exposition of the small, but important, “Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles”, pointing out the evidence from more than the fossils.

  13. SC says:

    He’s looking for a croc-o-duck.

    I’m sure it’s been pointed out here many times before, but a crocoduck is what he needs to find, to support his “theory,” not what the TOE needs to find (as he seems to think), since a crocoduck would actually be completely opposed to the basis of the TOE- gradual transition in populations over vast amounts of time.

  14. aturingtest, that’s a feature, not a bug. In all likelihood, there’s nothing that would persuade Don out of his beliefs, so when asked for something that would persuade him, one shouldn’t expect a reasoned response.

  15. Kenny Walter

    YES!!!! Thanks to DUHon it’s all perfectly clear now. Scientists should go with public opinion and conjecture from now on. No more of these attempts to educate and inform the public, just go with how the ignorant and uninformed want things to be. Sorry, gotta run. Jeebus just sent me an email.

  16. @aturingtest
    Your point reminds me of some of the other arguments against evolutionary biology which are really against – well, what ever it is that they are for:
    1) The universe is life-friendly
    If the universe were such that life, according to the laws of nature, were
    impossible, but despite that, life existed, that would be an argument for something super-natural going on (see 3a)
    2) The best efforts of the smartest people have not be able to design life
    This suggests that life is not designed
    3) Life is not consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics
    a) Therefore, the universe is not life-friendly
    b) The best efforts of the smartest people have not been able to bypass the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This suggests that design cannot bypass the 2nd law of thermodynamics

    It is difficult to imagine a more convoluted, self-contradictory set of arguments.

  17. Where is the scientific evidence to prove that we evolved from stars?
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
    I mean, seriously. Where do they get this s–er, this stuff?