Creationist Wisdom #581: Try & Try Again

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears in a newspaper that doesn’t give its name, but it’s probably the Intelligencer Journal of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The letter is titled Mother Nature and evolution. 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. His first name is Michael. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I’d like to introduce you to Intelligent Evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Go ahead, Michael, we’re ready:

You’ve surely heard of Intelligent Design, but how much more amazing is how intelligent Mother Nature is when she sets out to evolve something important like the human being.

Brace yourself, dear reader. Michael is about to explain how “intelligent nature” is much more improbable than an intelligent designer. Let’s read on:

No one knows how long it took to evolve the first man, but knowing there are some 20,000 parts to a DNA molecule, it had to have taken millions of years and lots of pond scum.

The DNA molecule has 20,000 “parts”? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! According to Wikipedia’s article, Human genome, human sperm and egg cells each have three billion DNA base pairs, and the DNA in our other cells has twice that number. Michael continues:

Can’t you just see it now? All the time spent, and then the man dies and the project is put on hold because he had no mate. Now Mother Nature has to start all over again.

Poor Mother Nature — all that work and nothing to show for it. Now she’s gotta go back to pond scum to start all over. Here’s more:

We imagine many attempts; one time a man evolves, and the next time a woman, and then perhaps after 30 or 40 attempts Mother Nature finally evolves both a man and a woman simultaneously so that the species can continue. Why, it may have taken billions of years!

Finally! Wow — Mother Nature must have been exhausted! Moving along:

But that would present a problem because most secular evolutionists are convinced man is only 100 million years old or so.

Uh, not quite that old, but Michael is only off by maybe 99 million years or so. Let’s not worry about it. Here’s Michael’s conclusion:

Well, I don’t know how she did it, but that Mother Nature sure is one smart cookie.

That’s the most devastating attack on evolution we’ve ever seen. Isn’t it time you gave it up, dear reader?

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

25 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #581: Try & Try Again

  1. michaelfugate

    Pure comedy gold.

  2. That’s got to be the funniest for a while. What on earth possessed the newspaper to publish such twaddle?

  3. I hate to defend ‘such twaddle’ and twaddle it is, and this is not really a defense, but the misguided Michael may be referring to the fact that there are about 20,000 genes in the human genome.

  4. Newspapers like to print letters which rouse reaction. It shows protential advertisers that people read the newspaper. If people react to something as dull as letters to the editors, there have got to be people reacting to ads.

  5. Michael believes each sex evolved separately from pond scum, but I would hazard a guess that he understands that every species did so, as well.

  6. I’m surprised he didn’t make more astute observations like, if prunes are dried plums how do you get prune juice?
    As for newspapers publishing stuff, the local paper around here would publish anything but they did limit a person to one per month.

  7. Genius!

    Let’s face it, the compelling analogy the Creationists have discovered between the works of nature and the works of man establishes Intelligent Design beyond all challenge.

    It’s clear that Michael has derived his profound insight here from the example of all those poor ancient Greeks who built gas stations–only to see their businesses fail for want of any automobiles–and all those unfortunate mediaeval Vikings who bought expensive outboard motors for their longships but ended up rowing them instead as there was no gasoline to be purchased. It took mankind millennia to get all our technology to match up correctly–just like Mother Nature!

  8. Stephen Kennedy

    Michael has really set a new standard for creationist dimwittedness. I doubt that if all the creationists at AIG, ICR and the DI got together they could come up with something as stupid as Michael wrote.

    One can imagine a five year old being this ignorant but he/she would survive if they had parents to care for them. Presumably, Michael is an adult and it is hard to imagine how he relates to the real world and has retained the childlike way of thinking.

  9. Dave Luckett

    Odd. I thought that the Bible tells us that man and woman are “one flesh”. So does the theory of evolution. It would appear that Michael has found a third way. I wonder if the luminaries at the DI are aware of this tremendous insight?

  10. It seems that mud-for-brains Michael is using Ray Comfort’s “It’s the first dog.” argument.

  11. Well, there’s at least one thing you can say about Michael’s letter — it certainly is original. So many of these creationist letters to editors keep parroting the same old, same old, but not Michael’s!

    It seems Michael believes that all is fair when defending the faith.

  12. That. Was. Awesome!

  13. @retiredsciguy
    The argument that evolution has to produce one individual of one sex, and independently another individual of the other sex – that is not original. It’s been around for quite some time. Unfortunately, I don’t have a reference for it, but my (fallible) memory suggests it goes back to the 19th century.

  14. michaelfugate

    For any two populations of the the same species, reproductive compatibility is an ancestral trait. The derived trait is reproductive isolation and leads to populations on independent evolutionary paths.

  15. @TomS:

    Yeah, well, I wasn’t around in the 19th century, so it seemed original to me… (Or maybe I was around in the 19th century, and had just forgotten.)

    Now that you mention it, though, I do seem to recall that argument — it’s so dumb, it’s not likely to be remembered.

  16. Holding The Line In Florida

    I call Poe! No one is that stupid, wait a minute. It is possible.

  17. Dave Luckett

    Oh, incidentally, a great comeback to the “Were you there?” question:

    “Why, yes, I was, actually. Saw the whole thing. Big bang, condensation of matter, formation of stars, aggregation of the Earth, bombardment phase, arrival of water, beginning of life, Cambrian, dinosaurs, mammals, hominins. All of it. It’s all true, so help me. I’m an eyewitness.”

    You don’t believe that? How do you know I wasn’t? Were you there, too?

  18. @Dave Luckett
    IMHO, that points out another inconsistency in creationist arguments.
    But is it too subtle?
    It shows, I think, that everybody recognizes that we can know something about the remote past. Even though deep time is too remote for immediate observation and manipulation, we can know about it. That argument shows that the only way to deny the evidence for evolutionary biology is to take refuge in nihilism.

  19. @TomS & Dave Luckett: That reminds me of what a geology prof was fond of saying — Mother Nature wrote down a record of everything that happened in the past. We just have to learn how to read her language.

  20. (The geology Professor was Dr. Michael Schneider of Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. He led six-week-long geology field trips across the Colorado Plateau for groups of earth science teachers sponsored by National Science Foundation grants. best experience of my entire teaching career.)

  21. Tom Rowland

    Brilliant! I hope you won’t mind if I borrow your response the next time the creatards show up at my door begging for handouts in the name of their Grand Old Designer.

  22. Dave Luckett says:

    Oh, incidentally, a great comeback to the “Were you there?” question: “Why, yes, I was, actually.”

    That’s actually a bit of an oldie around here. See: Were You There?

  23. “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” (“Raffiniert is der Herrgot, aber boshaft is er nich.”) – Einstein

    Nature does not lie. Lying is a kind of design.

  24. @rsg concludes: “It seems Michael believes that all is fair when defending the faith.”
    To me this more and more seems to apply to every single creationist – to our endless entertainment. Ha! The ultimate proof for the Intelligent Designer. He designed the brains of creationists in such a way, with the explicit purpose to amuse our dear SC and us, his cronies. The Intelligent Designer (this is for TomS and Einstein) may not be malicious, a great sense of humour he certainly has!

  25. Techreseller

    I have read this blog for years. Every post. This letter has to take the prize for least coherent explanation of anything I have read on this blog. What was Michael thinking? Oh, right, thinking. That explains it. Mish mash of data, poor analysis, no thinking going on here.