Creationist Wisdom #546: Science Is All Wrong

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Missoulian, of Missoula, Montana. It’s titled Science doesn’t disprove Creationism. The newspaper has a comments feature.

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. We’ll use only his first name, which is Dale. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Is Rev. John Lund (Missoulian, March 28) trying to say that Creationism cannot be scientific? He says it is “repudiated by the mainstream scientific world,” and implies Christians should support evolution.

Dale is complaining about this letter: Scientific Creationism consistently repudiated by mainstream scientific world, most Christian denominations. It’s good. It should be — the preacher who wrote it tells us he has a degree in physics. Among other things he said:

The Creation Scientists would like nothing more than for this to be a legitimate scientific debate. In actuality their positions are consistently and adamantly not given credibility by the mainstream scientific communities around the world. The Creationist conclusions are belief-based and are contrary to well-documented, field-tested, peer-reviewed, and highly accepted theories and understandings in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, and earth sciences. In those fields of study, there is no debate on whether there is a young earth, if all life was created in six days, or if a global flood actually happened.

Dale didn’t like it. He declares:

Repudiating does not mean disproving.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That goes two ways, Dale. Let’s read on:

Darwin did not start evolution. Charles Lyell said, “The present is the key to the past,” and pushed the idea that all sediments, with their fossils, were deposited over long ages, not quickly in a worldwide flood. His intent was to “free the science from Moses.” Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical nature of his ideas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Charles Lyell was a geologist and a close friend of Darwin. We’ve never before seen anyone claim that Lyell originated Darwin’s theory. When creationists accuse Darwin of plagiarism, they usually say he stole his idea from Wallace. Hey — what if Dale were right and Darwin stole his idea? He didn’t, of course, but even if he did — does that disprove evolution?

No, it doesn’t. Unlike religion, science is all about evidence. It isn’t based on the authority or character or reputation of any individual. It doesn’t even matter if the discoverer of a theory renounces it — which actually happened when the Inquisition compelled Galileo to repudiate the solar system. Regardless of any scientist’s quirks (real or imaginary), scientific theories stand on their merits, and evolution is an overwhelmingly verified theory. Dale continues:

I could repudiate most of Lund’s statements, and prove some of Creationism’s, but not in 300 words.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Not even in 3 million words! Here’s more, and the bracketed words are like that in Dale’s letter:

Lund doesn’t say if he believes the Bible is the Word of God, but says, “They [many Christians] take the Bible seriously, but understand Biblical truth to be different from historical fact or scientific truth.” This is an obvious contradiction! How can there be different kinds of truth? It cannot be compromised by a false belief system.

Yeah — it’s all or nothing. Moving along:

Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created “in the beginning,” that Noah was a real person, and the flood a real event. Do you want to “repudiate” Jesus? He didn’t deal in myths.

Powerful arguments indeed! Another excerpt:

Soft tissue has been recovered from marine fossils allegedly 530 million years old. How could it last that long? Use your favorite search engine to look for “Dinosaur soft tissue.” You will get several examples from the mainstream scientific literature. This is new evidence and supports the Creation model.

Aaaargh!! That again. See Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?

The final line of Dale’s letter is the best part:

For further reading, see “The Genesis Flood” by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See ICR’s Founder, Henry Morris: Exposed! Great letter, Dale!

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

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #546: Science Is All Wrong

  1. There’s a typo in Dale’s letter–but I don’t believe the Great Hand of Correction should intervene on behalf of a Creationist.

    Therefore, I will humbly provide the correction myself:

    For further reading ranting, see “The Genesis Flood” by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris.

  2. Dave Luckett

    Jesus didn’t say Adam and Eve were real people. He didn’t say that Noah’s flood was a real event. To say that he did is a flat, straight-up, baldfaced lie.

    What really gets my goat about fundies is that they’ll screech the rafters down about how the Bible is the word of God, and then merrily change and forge the words to suit themselves. Quote the actual words back at them, and they simply ignore you.

    Jesus is quoted as saying “In the beginning God made them male and female”. See where he says that Adam and Eve were real people? Me, neither. And weren’t humans male and female from the beginning, anyway?

    He is quoted as saying “It shall be as is was in the days of Noah… and the flood took them and swept them away”. See where he says that this was a real event, happening to real people? Me, neither.

    Jesus told stories to make a point. He referred to stories to make a point. He was like Uncle Remus in that.

    See what I just did?

  3. You have the patience of Job.

  4. Lund doesn’t say if he believes the Bible is the Word of God, but says, “They [many Christians] take the Bible seriously, but understand Biblical truth to be different from historical fact or scientific truth.” This is an obvious contradiction! How can there be different kinds of truth? It cannot be compromised by a false belief system.

    Well, there’s moral truth, for instance, which has nothing to do with science. The Bible is all about moral truth (though even there, some f what it accepts, slavery being an example, is cringeworthy). Quoting it as a source of scientific truth is a misuse of Scripture.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    I am continually amazed how much the ‘soft tissue’ story has taken hold and accepted by creationists.

  6. Charles Deetz 😉 says: “I am continually amazed how much the ‘soft tissue’ story has taken hold and accepted by creationists.”

    Despite their reliance on faith and their rejection of science, they’re desperate for anything that might be scientific validation of their beliefs.

  7. Yeah, I’m sure the guy who taught with parables surely took the stories of the OT as literally true.

  8. It is easy to find plenty of proof-texts in the New Testament which testify to the non-literal reading of the Bible.

    And I recommend this book which shows how the Bible was read in the culture which produced the Bible, in a couple of centuries across the turn of eras BCE/CE:

    James L. Kugel, The Bible As It Was.

  9. “Soft tissue has been recovered from marine fossils allegedly 530 million years old.”

    Hmm. What orifice did Dale pull that one from? Maybe the “soft tissue” is a Cambrian bunny tail?