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.