Creationist Wisdom #564: Canadian Preacher

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Thompson Citizen, a weekly newspaper of Thompson, Manitoba, which is known as the “Hub of the North.” It’s titled Fearfully and wonderfully made. The newspaper has a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. But today’s letter is written by Ted Goossen, pastor of the Christian Centre Fellowship. Excerpts from the rev’s letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Last week I had an appointment with a speech therapist who showed me a model of the vocal chords and how they function. The intricacy of the design and how this part of the body functions reminded me of what the Psalmist David said in Psalm 139:13, 14: “You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”

A model of the vocal cords was sufficient to send the rev into a spiritual frenzy? Well, okay. Then he says:

David did not have the knowledge of the human body we have today. Even with his limited knowledge he understood the complexity of the body.

Yeah, sure he did. Let’s read on:

David knew that he was a created being – not some product of blind chance or mindless evolution. The more we study the human body, the micro and the macro universes we see evidence of design. Everything shouts “designer’s workmanship.”

Oh yeah — see Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. The rev continues:

In a conversation with my dentist several months ago regarding his dental studies, he openly ridicules the thought that the way our mouths function have come about as a result of evolution. He sees complexity wherever he looks. And what he sees is evidence of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another creationist dentist. Hey, rev: If we’re so intelligently designed, why do we need dentists? Here’s more:

Irreducible complexity is what marks evolution theory for what it is – a sham. It once was thought that the single cell was simple – it’s very complex. Have we become so gullible to believe that as long as we add enough years and chance to the mix the implausible becomes probable?

Who’s being gullible — those who see mountains of evidence for evolution, or the rev, who has apparently been reading about irreducible complexity at the Discoveroids’ website? Moving along:

[Some creationist blogger] states that evolution in its starting point and even in some of its sustaining ideas is not a scientific theory – it is a philosophically driven theory. This is what led to such a dramatic change in the life of Phillip E. Johnson, retired law professor at University of California-Berkeley, considered to be the father of the intelligent design movement. When he began to study evolution so profoundly Johnson said, “this thing is philosophically, prejudicially driven. It is not scientifically driven.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt about it — the rev is a big fan of the Discoveroids. Another excerpt:

People who believe in Biblical Creation – that is that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and all life – are often looked on with derision and ridiculed by the so-called “evolutionary scientific” community. An increasingly greater number of scientists are leaving their evolutionary design theories behind because they no longer stand up to the evidence they see all around them of intelligent design.

Yes, vast numbers of scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution — see Discoveroids’ “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. On with the rev’s letter:

Dr. Jim Mason, who has a bachelor of science in engineering physics from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. will be speaking in Thompson this weekend May 1 3 at various venues. He is retired and presently on tour with Creation Ministries International Canada. He will be sharing exciting evidences to support the Bible’s history of creation as well as providing resources to go “in depth” after the meetings.

The rest of the rev’s letter is a few paragraphs promoting the creationist’s presentation. If you care, you can read that for yourself. Then, if you’re in Manitoba and you’re in the mood for some of that ol’ fashioned, down-home, foot-stompin’, hand-clappin’, psalm-singin’, floor-rollin’, rafter-shakin’, old-time creationism, you know where to find it.

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #564: Canadian Preacher

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Hey, rev: If we’re so intelligently designed, why do we need dentists?

    Curmie, don’t ya know that the creator gave up on his jaw design after the fall to punish all humans … except for the orthodontists and dentists who can now afford fishing trips to Canada.

  2. Teddy claims everything shouts “designer’s workmanship”. Perhaps so. However, as an anatomist, and as a recent patient for laser surgery to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, I know that the alleged designer’s workmanship is pretty bloody shoddy. Perhaps the vocal cord model Teddy saw didn’t include the recurrent laryngeal nerves, the courses of which are quite understandable from the way the evolved, but make no sense if a sky fairy, of even mediocre intelligence, designed them. Any anatomist could list dozens of similar examples.

  3. As I’ve often mentioned, I didn’t have a full grasp of the failure of “the presence of complexity requires the involvement of intelligence” argument until I started writing evolutionary algorithms. My sense of intuition, that inner voice of what does and doesn’t make sense, didn’t really grasp that simplicity really can produce complexity until I saw that I could write a program using very simple rules to solve problems where the solution was something very complex which I never anticipated when I wrote the program.

    Of course, Young Earth Creationist deniers of evolution would tell me “You wrote intelligence into the program. After all, a program can only do what the programmer instructed it to do.” They refuse to understand that I did not write a lot of intelligence into my programs. I didn’t even think very much about possible solutions at all. I simply told the program how to apply the simple rules–and then sat back and watched what solutions my program produced. I found that my program could quickly solve problems that I couldn’t have solved in a lifetime. Only after I had used such programs for a while did I realize that simplicity can indeed produce complexity without requiring lots of intelligence. Now evolution feels right to me in ways it didn’t previously.

    So I have some modicum of sympathy for those who think complexity in and of itself demands that an intelligent agent directly implemented a solution to a problem. I can’t expect them to write their own evolutionary algorithms but they can get some of the “feel” for them with an on-line animation like this one. It shows how just a few simple rules from physics can “evolve” efficient car designs:

    http://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

    Many such program exists on-line and I think it is one of the best ways to help a person grasp how something as “blind” [not necessarily] and “random” [but not really] as natural processes can produce amazing solutions to the problem of survival.

  4. Teddy claims everything shouts “designer’s workmanship”.
    Well he may be right, but the designer should be fired for incompetence!!
    A throat that chokes, appendix that bursts, teeth that hurt…If he designed us in his image then he is in pain and wants company.

  5. I kinda of get in a spiritual frenzy when I think of the female anatomy. Blessed is the designer’s workmanship!

  6. It’s a free ad for the upcoming guest speaker. Probably a regurgitation of whatever the pamphlets he received contained.

    At times I wonder if displays of willful ignorance aren’t being used to gloss over the deception that seems to be the bread and butter of their trade.

  7. [Some creationist blogger] states that evolution in its starting point and even in some of its sustaining ideas is not a scientific theory – it is a philosophically driven theory. This is what led to such a dramatic change in the life of Phillip E. Johnson, retired law professor at University of California-Berkeley, considered to be the father of the intelligent design movement. When he began to study evolution so profoundly Johnson said, “this thing is philosophically, prejudicially driven. It is not scientifically driven.”

    So law professors can pass judgment on the biological sciences now? Does this mean biologists get to critique the legal profession?

    Dr. Jim Mason, who has a bachelor of science in engineering physics from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. and a PhD in experimental nuclear physics from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. will be speaking in Thompson this weekend May 1 3 at various venues.

    Does Dr. Jim have a scientific explanation, based on his Ph.D. knowledge of nuclear physics, for all the different lines of evidence from that field which point to an ancient Earth?

  8. Garnetstar

    So there’s a dentist who thinks that the vestigial wisdom teeth are beautifully and intelligently designed? Not the product of humans’ jaws becoming smaller and shifting in position, so that those last molars can’t emerge, and instead try to move in sideways or become infected, causing hideous pain?

    Remind me to get dental care from someone else.

  9. Ken Phelps

    Apparently the quality of editorial staff in Manitoba roughly parallels the quality of the weather. I had a very mild post questioning the wisdom of relying on speech therapists, lawyers, etc. for information about biology removed from the comment section. I have resubmitted an even blander version which is awaiting moderation.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the person moderating this particular backwater of the paper is a Bible-thumper themselves. It always amazes me that religious people who cavalierly will impugn the integrity of thousands of scientists (as the article does) are so touchy about their own delicate sensitivities.

  10. Ken Phelps

    @garnetstar – “Remind me to get dental care from someone else.”

    Be grateful you don’t read the religion/evolution threads on the Dentaltown website. It would make your skin crawl.