Creationist Wisdom #519: Science Proves God

Don't Drool-2

This is the world début the new graphic which adorns this post, created by the talented elves who ceaselessly toil in our art department. It may be useful in many contexts — especially when creationists accuse us of waging an imaginary war against their religion. If its meaning mystifies you, it’s a parody of the Gadsden flag, modified for The Controversy between evolution and creationism.

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Journal Gazette and Times-Courier of Mattoon, Illinois. It’s titled Science repeatedly proves God. 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 Robert. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

After discussing an earlier letter with which he disagrees, Robert says:

She advanced two arguments that proved to her God does not exist. I would like to share my argument for why I believe He does exist.

Get ready, dear reader. Here comes Robert’s argument:

It’s often call [sic] the teleological argument for God and it basically says when we see order, design and purpose, we also see intelligence, and for me, I see order, design and purpose everywhere in the universe.

That’s it? It’s nothing more than the Discoveroids’ argument. Why does Robert think it’s so persuasive? Let’s read on:

One night in a seminary dorm room (more real learning occurs in dorm room discussion after midnight than any class room), someone asked, “What is the most religious course you ever took?” referring, obviously to our prior studies in Christianity. I immediately replied that it wasn’t a course in religion at all. It was Introduction to Physiology 101 at the University of Illinois because to study all the mechanisms of the human body with all its complexities is to study God for I felt I was literally examining a well planned, precisely designed machine.

The human body? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That clumsy contraption inspired us to write Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. Robert continues, and he’s still in that dorm room bull session where his true education occurred:

Instantly, another seminarian said, “No, for me, my most religious course was a two hour undergraduate class in astronomy. When you see the precision in the stars and planets measurable down to a second, you have to know there was a planner, an intelligence who put it all together.”

Yes! Only intelligence could have created the asteroid belt or the battered surface of the Moon. Here’s more:

For me, science proves God over and over again. Countless laws and principles and formulae of chemistry and physics are consistently definable and exact and therefore can be used to take us to Mars someday.

Ah yes, things are what they are and behave as they do, rather than constantly becoming what they aren’t and behaving some other way. Therefore Oogity Boogity! Moving along:

Science has truly uncovered clear evidence of God. Where there is design, there is a Designer.

Ooooooooooh, ooooooooooh! Design! And now we come to the end (ellipsis in the original):

Maybe, science and religion are two wheels on the same axle…and it takes both of them to move us along toward total truth?

Maybe, but why do they often spin in different directions? Ah well, Robert has a right to his opinions. All we ask is that he doesn’t drool on us.

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

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #519: Science Proves God

  1. Robert attests

    more real learning occurs in dorm room discussion after midnight than any class room

    I’m not disagreeing with our luminary on this point, but I have never heard these educational sessions described as ‘discussions’ before.

    Did he perhaps mean ‘congress’?

  2. I like the new graphic.

  3. michaelfugate

    When you believe in an agent God, you will see signs of its agency everywhere – no matter if there is no God of if there is that it does nothing. It is circular and that these supposedly educated people can’t see it is telling.

  4. Holding The Line In Florida

    To quote the master “hare brain” himself Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon! What an ignoranimous!”

  5. Wow – what a waste of college tuition money for Robert. He didn’t improve his mind past the intellectual level of Iron Age serfs.

  6. The “argument from design” is a spavined old warhorse already decrepit when Darwin was born. It amounts to saying, “The universe works, and we live in it, so God must have made everything.”

    It gets things exactly backward because it posits that the universe was created so that we “images of God” could live in it, rather than that we live in it because the laws of nature make that possible.

  7. michaelfugate

    As SC has commented Hume put a nail(s) in the design coffin long before Darwin made it dam’ near impossible to reopen.

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    Sir, I’ve read Eric Metaxas, I know what Eric Metaxas thinks. You sir, are no Eric Metaxas. (Repurposing Lloyd Bentsen)

  9. Dave Luckett

    Says Robert: “For me, science proves God over and over again.”

    Here’s the problem, Robert: for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to anyone who inspects the proof. Proof isn’t a matter of opinion. The square on the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares on the other two lines. That isn’t proven just to me or to you, it’s proven to anyone who follows the math. But God isn’t proven that way.

    Maybe you look at the stars and see God’s work. Me, I see what must happen when dust and gas are randomly clumped and begin to contract under gravity. You look at your body and see God. Me, I look at mine, usually right after it has been compulsorally comatose for its required one-third of the time, and I see a fragile sack of aging bones, a catalogue of aches and pains, quite plainly a cobbled-together series of kludges that work only for a while under very specific conditions. You see purpose. I see only what is bound to happen sooner or later when random mutation meets natural selection.

    What you call proof must work for anyone who sees it. I see what you see, but I see no proof. Could it be that it isn’t there?

  10. Either the course Robbie took didn’t cover much about anatomy, or he wasn’t paying attention. I taught human anatomy for a number of years, and there are many aspects of it that make sense because of evolution, but that even a freshman engineer at the school Robbie claims to have attended would never do.

    Here are two of my favorites. 1) The course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve makes sense if you know how vertebrates evolved, but absolutely no sense as a “design”, unless it was intended to let its owner know they are about to die from matastasized lung cancer when the swollen lymph nodes around it suddenly change their voice register. 2) The fact that the air and food pipes cross in the throat makes sense if you know how vertebrates evolved, but the only reason a designer (blessed be his/her/its name) would do that is if they wanted a proportion of their dearly beloved creations to choke to death on steak each year, so he/she/it is either malign or stupid.

    There are numerous other things about the “mechanisms of the human body”, and other aspects of biology, that make no sense except in the light of evolution, to paraphrase Dobzhansky.

  11. Besides those things, abeastwood, there’s the old complaint that only an incompetent designer would run sewer lines through a recreational area.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    @abeastwood I googled around for some master list of evolutionary errors for humans (besides vestigal organs), and found a pretty decent read. It includes Retired Prof’s example and similar plumbing compalints. There also is the lower back, feet, birth canal, vitamin synthesis (or lack thereof), knees, teeth.

  13. Dave Luckett, I’m afraid our writer Robert wasn’t paying attention in his high school geometry class, and thus doesn’t understand the concept of “proof”. As is true for beauty, religion seems to also be in the eye of the beholder. If the concept of “God” has been planted in one’s brain at an early age, one sees “God” everywhere he or she looks; whereas one with a rational mind sees and appreciates beauty.

    Some would say God put us here, and designed the entire universe just for our existence.

    Others would say we are here because the natural rules that govern the universe do not prohibit our existence, and it was inevitable that given enough time, we would come into being, following a long, long evolutionary chain.

    The first idea requires a supernatural force. The second idea does not. So which is more logical? Hmmm. Let me think on that for a while.

  14. Eric Lipps notices: “It gets things exactly backward ”
    Well, yes, by definition, because science is causal (or probabilistic) and theology is teleological – exactly the other way round.

  15. Ahhh, wish there was a preview… “img src” tag doesn’t work.
    Mr Curmudgeon: Alternate elf work:

  16. That’s very good, skmarshall. Did you make it, or find it somewhere?

  17. all mine, (assembled from various images)

  18. skmarshall says: “all mine”

    Well done!

  19. Of course now it’s all yours, Fearless Leader, if you so choose!