Creationist Wisdom #535: Evolution Isn’t Science

This isn’t a letter-to-the-editor, but the quality is similar so we’ll treat it as such. We found it at the website American Clarion, which describes itself like this:

We feature contributors from around the country with their own unique perspective on issues from local to global focus, but always with a mind to American principles and the Judeo-Christian values that made this country the greatest in human history.

The article is titled Evolution: Mixing Science and Anti-Science, written by Bob Ellis — the owner of the website. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A lot (the vast majority, actually) of people call themselves, creationists, and that’s good. Even though some of these mix bad, scientifically-unsupported ideas with creation science, that’s still better than believing in scientifically impossible materialistic evolution.

Yes, it’s good. Then he says:

I used to be a theistic evolutionist. This means that I believed God created the universe and everything in it, but I also believed God probably used evolution over billions of years to make the universe (earth, in particular) the way it is today. But that was before I realized that evolution is not supported by science.

Ah, he came to his senses. Let’s read on:

You see, even if you mix in a little creation science and suppose that God kick-started life in the beginning (materialistic evolutionists have a harder time still, having to explain how life began when science demonstrates that life does not–never, EVER has–come from lifeless materials), you’re still left with the fact that evolution has never been observed taking place either in the lab or in the field.

Wow — evolution is a fraud! He continues:

Even after watching countless quickly-reproducing generations of bacteria for decades, in the end, you still have…bacteria. And that’s also without getting into the materialistic evolutionist’s problems of dealing with matter coming into existence from nothing, disorganized matter (that came into existence from nothing) spontaneously organizing itself into higher functional forms of matter, etc.

If you think that’s a powerful argument, wait until you see what’s coming next:

Not only did I not realize that evolution isn’t supported by science, I also didn’t realize that evolution simply doesn’t fit what the Bible says about how the universe came to be. Read it for yourself. You just can’t make evolution fit the Genesis account without all sorts of wild gyrations and “creative” interpretations of what is stated pretty plainly and simply. Evolution and billions of years also won’t fit the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have to believe one or the other, evolution or the Bible; they can’t both be right.

Yup — those are the only choices. Here’s more:

In order for a belief to be reliable, it must be consistent, and it must conform to observable evidence. If a belief is contradicted by either logic or observable evidence (or both), it cannot be a reliable belief, and should be abandoned. Materialistic evolution is contradicted by observable science on many levels. Therefore, it cannot be a reliable belief.

But what about the bible? Does that meet Bob’s rigid standards? He deals with that at the end:

Only taking God at his word (i.e. believing he meant what he said) is supported by both observable science and by God’s account of the creation of the universe. Creation science is the only belief that is consistent within its own framework of assumptions, and that is supported by the evidence. So objective analysis makes it pretty clear where we should look for answers about ourselves and the universe in which we live.

We can’t argue with Bob’s objective analysis. Can you, dear reader? By the way, we probably won’t be visiting American Clarion any more. We already post about the Discoveroids, ol’ Hambo, WND, ICR, Jack Chick, and maybe a couple of others now and then. That’s enough creationist websites — even for your Curmudgeon. Goodbye, American Clarion.

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #535: Evolution Isn’t Science

  1. “You have to believe one or the other, evolution or the Bible; they can’t both be right.”
    What a wonderful example of a category error.

  2. …that’s still better than believing in scientifically impossible materialistic evolution.

    Don’t these guys ever wonder why virtually all scientists in this field of study, world-wide, accept and support a theory that is “scientifically impossible?” Do they honestly think they know more about what is scientifically impossible than scientists themselves?

    Do they seriously believe that the bible is a source of modern scientific knowledge? If there is a god, he must be laughing his ineffable ass off.

  3. Oh yes, SC, this is excellent! You should also have highlighted

    “science demonstrates that life does not–never, EVER has–come from lifeless materials”
    because I’m so eager to learn what book written by biochemists or what article in which scientific magazine demonstrates this.

    “Goodbye, American Clarion.”
    Suggestion: save it for quiet days.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    I’m just surprised that a previous ‘theistic evolutionist’ (which is what most Americans are because they just don’t know how to resolve it any other way) would end up falling onto the creationist side of the fence. And he fell HARD, must have got a lump on his noggin.

  5. And the data that supports Bobby boy view of evolution is somehow buried in a book of myths that originated with bronze age sheep herders? Sounds unlikely to me!

  6. Charles, having talked with a few other people who claim they were theistic evolutionists before they “saw the light,” most of them are disingenuous at best. I’m not saying that they’re liars, but they often see in themselves just exactly what they want to see, and often as not they were raised in one of the many, many churches where theistic evolution was totally cool and only became strong creationists after finding a church where that was less welcome.

  7. Stephen Kennedy

    We really do not need American Clarion, they just repeat all the discredited arguments that Hambo makes.

  8. Tripp in Georgia

    “Evolution is not supported by science”

    ‘Atheism is a religion’

    These guys don’t know how to use the psychological defense of ‘projection’ properly. This is way too transparent and is doomed to backfire.

  9. “You see, even if you mix in a little creation science and suppose that God kick-started life in the beginning (materialistic evolutionists have a harder time still, having to explain how life began when science demonstrates that life does not–never, EVER has–come from lifeless materials), you’re still left with the fact that evolution has never been observed taking place either in the lab or in the field.”

    Actually, it has. Creationists mostly don’t know about that, and the ones who do babble about microevolution vs. macroevolution, picking and choosing what counts as which in order to continue saying that “evolution” has never been seen. This is just a version of the “show me a monkey turning into a man” argument.

    “A lot (the vast majority, actually) of people call themselves, creationists, and that’s good. Even though some of these mix bad, scientifically-unsupported ideas with creation science, that’s still better than believing in scientifically impossible materialistic evolution.”

    Well, not really. Most people don’t call themselves creationists, whether they believe in creation or not. And though it’s true that a depressingly large percentage of Americans reject evolution (something not nearly as true elsewhere in the developed world, but evidently foreigners aren’t actual people to creationists until they’re properly converted), that proves nothing whatever about whether the theory is true (see above, about geocentrism vs, Copernican astronomy).

  10. Dave Luckett

    “Even after watching countless quickly-reproducing generations of bacteria for decades, in the end, you still have…bacteria.”

    Yes, that’s true, and that’s not even the hundredth of it. At the end of two billion years of quickly-reproducing generations of bacteria on Earth, there were still only bacteria at the end.

    Only that turned out not to be at the end. More like about two-thirds of the way through. The next billion-and-a-half years saw a lot of changes.

    And speaking of those changes? Replace “bacteria” with one of the other kingdoms that emerged within the last billion years, and we get:

    “After watching countless generations of animals in the fossil record, in the end we still have… animals.”

    Yes. So we do. New phyla, orders, families, genera emerge and diverge, but still they’re only animals. Obviously evolution must be wrong!

    I suppose by now I should be inured to wiful, purposeful ignorance erected into a world-view, but it still makes me want to slap the people who purvey it.

  11. ….but I also believed God probably used evolution over billions of years to make the universe (earth, in particular) the way it is today.

    Hmmm. If he used to think that evolution was the process that produced the universe, no wonder he has such difficult struggles with science!

    Yes, don’t ya just hate it when a scientific theory is so defective that it doesn’t explain EVERYTHING ya wanna know?

  12. So this guy never uses modern medicine because being based on evilution it can’t be true???
    Is evilution true? Don’t care! evilution has allowed scientists to develop thousands of cures to various diseases, CREATIONIST HAS PRODUCED NOTHING USEFUL!!!! So creationist can F……well go away!