Creationist Wisdom #580: The Core Question

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Dispatch of Moline, Illinois. It’s titled Evolution, it appears, is a religion to some followers. The newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We think he has some kind of low-level position at Black Hawk College, but that’s not enough for full-name treatment. His first name is Vance. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Vance begins by telling us that he’s responding to a letter that appeared back in February: He wishes creationists luck in ‘flat earth’ quest. Apparently it’s been bothering him a long time. He says:

I am sure that in the writer’s eyes I am nothing more than a gullible dolt for believing God created man. So be it then. I believe, as well as millions of other Christians, as God stated in Genesis 1:27 that he and he alone created man in his own image not evolution.

That’s nice, but it’s not nearly enough to qualify for inclusion in your Curmudgeon’s collection. We want amusement! Come on, Vance, give it to us! Ah, it’s coming:

Evolution in the sense that things change is evident but evolution of molecules to man is not scientifically plausible and therefore should not be viewed as scientific fact.

Oooooooooooh — “molecules to man.” That’s ol’ Hambo’s expression. Vance must be really well-read in creationism. He continues:

There is no known observable process by which genetic information can be added to an organism’s genetic code so that refutes evolution right away.

Oooooooooooh — information! Vance knows our weak spot! (See Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.) Here’s more:

Evolution, it would appear, is a religion to some.

A religion? Egad, that’s horrible! Moving along:

Not even Darwin could answer the core question: How did evolution begin?

Aaaargh!! Vance has asked the “core question.” Darwin is doomed! Here’s another excerpt:

Did you know that Darwin stated in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, a type of atheist who rejected the Old Testament history of the world and believed in eugenics?

We won’t mess with that at all, other than to suggest that it contains more waste material than Noah’s Ark. On with the letter:

Go to [link omitted] and see for yourself the hundreds of scientists, the majority having Ph.Ds in their respective fields, that don’t agree with Darwinism.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He’s talking about the Discoveroids’ tragically embarrassing list of droolers who signed A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. We write about it now and then — see Discoveroids’ “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”.

And now we come to the end:

It is a fact that Charles Darwin is buried next to Isaac Newton, both indeed are dead and God is still alive. Christians need to unite and take a stance against saturnine evolutionists who believe in Darwin’s version of evolution.

We know what “saturnine” means, and whence it comes. Forgive us, dear reader, but we can’t resist our own planetary reference: Your Curmudgeon urges you to unite and take a stance against creationist nonsense from the Seventh Planet.

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

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #580: The Core Question

  1. Dave Luckett

    Personally, I love the willingness to add to scripture. “God stated in Genesis 1:27 that he, and he alone, created man in his image and not evolution,” says Vance. The words “and not evolution” are Vance’s own little addition.

    Vance apparently thinks that God cannot work by or through the natural processes that He created. When God does something, it has to be by fiat and miracle. So Vance, not satisfied with adding to the scripture, subtracts from God by demanding that He work according to Vance’s instructions.

    I know, of course, that others will be more outraged by the ignorance and violent mangling of science perpetrated by this writer. It’s just me that I’m rendered more nauseous by his hubris and hypocrisy.

  2. Dave Luckett

    I mangled the tags. Save me, oh mighty one!

    [*Voice from above*] Behold, you are saved.

  3. Evolution in the sense that things change is evident but evolution of molecules to man is not scientifically plausible and therefore should not be viewed as scientific fact.

    Vance, try this on for size (if you know how to read): Origin-of-Life Story May Have Found Its Missing Link.

  4. @Dave Luckett
    I fully agree.
    It’s time that the “it’s in the book” people get called on when they make stuff up and say it’s in the Bible.
    ” If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” Revelation 22:18

    DavidK
    “Molecules to man” takes place every day. It is not called “evolution”, it is reproduction or metabolism.

  5. michaelfugate

    “molecules to man” could be just as easily molecules to mouse, to magpie, to mamba, to mudpuppy, to mudsucker, to mussel, to mole crab, to…..

    What does Vance think his God did when he took dust from the ground and turned into humans – except molecules to man?

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Creationist writes post “no known observable process” Gotcha!
    Evilutionist comes back “okay, show me god’s process”.
    Creationist nails it: “Aha, see evolution is a religion, it doesn’t have an observable process either.”

  7. ANother xtian with the ”’its a religion” like that was a bad thing!!?? Wait if it is a bad thing then what does that say about his religion???

  8. @DL seems to feel a bit lonely: “It’s just me that I’m rendered more nauseous by his hubris and hypocrisy.”
    Not at all just you. Ignorance and stupidity can easily be forgiven when realizing how ignorant and stupid we ourselves can be. But their sheer arrogance never fails to annoy me indeed.

  9. Dave Luckett

    By “it’s just me”, I meant “it is part of me”, not “I am alone” in being rendered nauseous more by the writer’s hubris and hypocrisy than by his ignorance and the violence he does to the science.

  10. @L.Long
    Not that it would be unusual for a creationist to be self-contradictory, but there are some fundamentalists who claim that their Christianity is not a religion. (I think that one of those Jack Chick comics says that.)

  11. Dave Luckett

    Like Our Host, I must admit to feeling some intrigue at the use of the adjective “saturnine” to refer to “evolutionists”. Could the writer mean “satyrine”? I’m afraid those days are well behind me. Or possibly “satanic”? I wouldn’t put it past him. “Saccherine”?… Um, no, I don’t think so.

    I suppose it is possible that the writer thinks that acceptance of the theory of evolution causes despondency. I wonder what his reaction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (“You can’t win, you can’t break even and you can’t quit the game”) would be?

  12. “I am sure that in the writer’s eyes I am nothing more than a gullible dolt for believing God created man. So be it then. I believe, as well as millions of other Christians, as God stated in Genesis 1:27 that he and he alone created man in his own image not evolution.”

    No, Vance, what makes you a gullible dolt is that you say “God stated” when even the Bible gives that verse in the third person.

  13. Vance:
    “Did you know that Darwin stated in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, a type of atheist who rejected the Old Testament history of the world and believed in eugenics?”

    And this is meant to somehow disprove evolution? Vance, even if Darwin boiled puppies for breakfast evolution would still be true.

    As Sam Cooke sang, you “don’t know much about science book(s),” do you, Vance? Science by its very definition is the study of the material universe — that is, all that is made up of matter and energy. Thus, all true scientists are materialists, as opposed to spiritualists.

    (Disclaimer — no puppies were eaten for the writing of this post.)

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    God kinda had the same problem … he made Adam and suddenly realized he needed a woman to go with him. Lucky for him, he knew the trick was to grab a rib from Adam, so he didn’t have to try and try again.

  15. Holding The Line In Florida

    I call Poe again. This is really stupid. I do like the comments. That is why I call Poe. I like to stir stuff up in my classes just to see what the results are!