Creationist Wisdom #584: Evolution Isn’t Science

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Knoxville News Sentinel of Knoxville, Tennessee. It’s titled God established universe’s laws. The newspaper has a comments section, but you need to subscribe to see what’s going on there.

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 found someone with his name whose job is Application Analyst (whatever that is) at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, but that may not be our man — and even if it is, it doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. His first name is Bill. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The letter to the editor titled “Religions lose flocks because of science” doesn’t do the topic justice.

Bill is referring to this letter, which is pretty good. It begins by saying:

Why are people leaving religion? I’m an atheist and I know why I left religion: It’s because I saw that the claims of religion are simply not supportable in light of modern scientific knowledge.

Bill doesn’t agree. He says:

Yes, late teens and young adults are leaving religion in greater numbers, but that reason was revealed 2,000 years ago. For the detailed explanation, read Mark 4:3-20.

You can read that biblical explanation if you like. We’ll stay with Bill’s letter:

While science has its peripheral influence, honest examination leaves the scientific explanation of origins and life with cavernous holes in it.

“Cavernous holes”? Egad! Bill continues:

Scientific law states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Science also insists the energy is conserved.

What’s Bill getting at? He tells us:

Since neither matter nor energy can be eternal, they both have a starting point. However, science prohibits that. Nevertheless, matter and energy exist. Science cannot explain that.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, then why wouldn’t they be eternal — in one form or another? Here’s more:

Evolution also has scientific problems, although few will admit it. Evolution violates the two most basic tenets of science: observation and reproducibility.

You know what’s next, don’t you? Here it comes:

Despite the abundance of fossils and geologic formations, evolution cannot be observed. No one has ever witnessed a fish evolving into an amphibian, then a reptile. Perhaps more curious to me is that evolution cannot be reproduced.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yet another creationist who insists that he won’t be impressed unless we reproduce the Earth’s biosphere. The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has an entry for that old clunker. Moving along:

Why doesn’t anyone reproduce evolution in a lab? Better yet, why isn’t anyone trying? It is because they know it cannot be done.

No one is trying? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Bill is obviously unaware of Richard Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment.

And now we come to the end:

It requires supernatural interference to put matter, energy and life into place. It is fascinating to read about the supernatural God in Jeremiah 33:25 who established the fixed laws of the universe. The one who creates is greater than the creation.

Because that’s the climax of Bill’s letter, we’ll have to show that scripture passage for your consideration. Here it is — King James version, of course:

Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;

So there you are. If that didn’t convince you, then nothing will, and the Lake of Fire awaits you.

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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #584: Evolution Isn’t Science

  1. Again, a creationist ignoramus states scientific laws “that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Science also insists the energy is conserved” that they do not understand. The first part only applies in certain areas, like chemistry for example, but where does this person think that nuclear power come from, for example, say, the source of sun light? It comes from the conversion of mass into energy. mass is destroyed, energy is created (mass-energy is conserved).

    This is so simple, even humans can do it (ever seen an atomic energy plant?).

    This guy,as well as all of the others of his ilk, prove the point that creationists are ignoramuses because they ignore (are ignorant of) all of the facts to the contrary. But they keep stepping up for a fight but are “bringing a knife to a gun fight” each time.

  2. Can’t these people at least come up with an original argument? It doesn’t have to be good, it certainly won’t be right but for variety get a new argument?

  3. Steve Ruis observes that Creationists

    keep stepping up for a fight but are “bringing a knife to a gun fight” each time

    You need to specify “a rubber knife” lest you give them too much credit.

    Personally, I’ve never seen them armed with anything more formidable than a pea-shooter.

  4. We found two recent posts where we also dealt with the “not repeatable” issue: Creationist Wisdom #535 and Creationist Wisdom #555. We’re not surprised to see that we titled both of them “Evolution Isn’t Science.” In the second one, we said that the source of the repeatability clunker is old Henry Morris

  5. Many people, including people who have no trouble accepting evolution, think that the most important evidence for evolution is the fossiles.
    While fossils present interesting information about evolution, we should be aware of these important kinds of evidence:
    * The observations of evolution taking place, under controlled condtions and in the wild
    * The structure of taxonomy – no one has even suggested an alternative account for what happens so that the world of life descibes such a pattern of similarities and differencesl without making reference to common descent
    * Biogeographhy
    * Embryology

  6. …who established the fixed laws of the universe.

    Why is it that the universe is full of “fixed laws” until a “creation scientist” faces a major problem (e.g., speed of light, radioisotope decay), and then those laws are not “fixed” at all–and the tricky Young Earth Creationism apologist starts complaining that “It could have operated differently back then!” and “Were you there?”

    They love to talk about “fixed laws of the universe” until their dilemma calls for “uniformitarianism is hopelessly flawed!” I guess sometimes the only way a YECist can fix a fixed law of the universe is to unfix it.

    My personal favorite is multiplying the speed of light by billions in order to solve the distant starlight problem. Of course, boiling away the oceans in the process is considered a minor problem. (Just insert miracle here and the “theory” is salvaged.)

    Jason Lisle even claims that the very fact that the universe is logical, rational, and based on fixed laws which make sense “is the ultimate proof of God”, and then goes on to “solve” every falsification of his claim by describing a totally irrational universe where one can’t expect any sort of consistency because the creator (apparently) is constantly changing the “rules” which govern it.

    Yes, the universe is filled with amazing wonders–such as why is it that my recent article on Ken Ham’s rant against Miley Cyrus took only nine hours to more than double the previous Total Visitors and Total Views records for the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog? (Apparently Kenny’s complaints about Miley’s preference for sexual partners of her own species–which Ken “Were you there?” Ham thought made no rational sense under The Theory of Evolution–struck the interest of my readers far more than Hebrew exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics. Who’d a thought it?)

    Yes, I will admit it. Many of the wonders of the universe are far beyond my ability to comprehend. Both Ken Ham and Miley Cyrus are among them. Therefore, adding Jason Lisle to that list of wonders causes me to question a rational creation.

  7. docbill1351

    keep stepping up for a fight but are “bringing a knife to a gun fight” each time

    You need to specify “a rubber knife” lest you give them too much credit.

    Actually, it’s an imaginary rubber knife.

  8. But it’s a magical imaginary rubber knife…

  9. Doctor Stochastic

    As Tom S points out, evolution can be observed from looking at things as they are today. Stellar evolution even more so. Or as my signature line has it: “Synchrony manifests diachrony.”

  10. Actually, it’s a magical imaginary rubber knife.

    That reminds me of an old joke that I’ve heard in several variations and which I expanded into an illustration for an article I wrote years ago. Here’s my version:

    Imagine a passage in the Bible describing the journey of some prophet. The text lists the names of various villages along the route, along with a mountain for which each village was assumed to have been named. A recent archaeological discovery leads scholars to identify the modern day location of one of the ancient villages listed. We will call this imaginary village: Tel Jordan.

    However, there are no mountains in the vicinity of that village. The news of the discovery is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal which is then reported in the general news media. Then, various kinds of Internet websites announce it, each according to their own distinctive spin. Here are some of the likely headlines and subtitles:

    1) Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature website:
    Tel Jordan Discovery Prompts New Questions About Ancient Trek.
    Conference papers propose likely answers.

    2) Today’s Atheist News website
    Archaeological Discovery Debunks Route of Biblical Prophet.
    Bible again refuted. Yet another proof God doesn’t exist.

    3) Journal of Evangelical Theological Society website:
    Paper Proposes Simple Answer to Tel Jordan Question.
    Hebrew HAR refers to HILL as well as MOUNTAIN.
    Tel Jordan’s highest hill on the Jordan’s riverbank was likely HAR.

    4) YEC “Creation Science” website:
    The Invisible Mountains of Tel Jordan!
    Archaeological Discovery Proves the Bible Yet Again!
    The peer-reviewed findings consistent with 6,000 year old earth!

    Dr. Jason Lisle proved that “The prophet couldn’t see the mountain in his day because speed of light was too slow to reach him before his journey took him to the next village. So, for all practical purposes, the mountain was invisible.”

    Ken Ham wrote, “To avoid confusing us today, a miracle of faith removed the mountain just as Jesus foretold in Matthew 17:20. It was obviously thrown into the sea. The Bible says so and I believe it.”

    [Note to reader: Yes, the YEC spin is not even fully consistent with itself. I intentionally made the fictional quotations incongruous because I’m often surprised that the articles published at AIG and ICR don’t even make sense on their own terms and within their own party line. Self-contradiction remains perpetually at the very heart of “creation science” propaganda.]

    {I found my illustration in the old Bible.and.Science.Forum email newletter archives and I’ll soon be posting to the bibleandscienceforum.wordpress.com blog, if anybody wants to find it in the future. We do grant permissions on such material.}

  11. Doctor Stochastic

    Whether The Prophet sees the mountain or not; the mountain shall come to The Prophet.

  12. “science has its peripheral influence”
    I love this one. Cars, planes, nuclear bombs, internet – it’s all peripheral.
    Moreover we have the greatest (read: silliest) version of the Cosmological Argument I have ever met.

    Third prof makes an excellent observation: “the universe is full of “fixed laws” until a “creation scientist” faces a major problem”
    I think I’m going to steal this one, just for fun.

  13. Since neither matter nor energy can be eternal, they both have a starting point.

    Who says they can’t he eternal?

    It requires supernatural interference to put matter, energy and life into place. It is fascinating to read about the supernatural God in Jeremiah 33:25 who established the fixed laws of the universe. The one who creates is greater than the creation.

    Horse turds. (Or maybe bull.) Anything which exists is by definition part of nature; “supernatural” is a null term. And if everything in existence requires a creator greater than him/her/itself, what about God?

    Again, not that this should need repeating, if God can have existed forever, why can’t matter and energy have done so? It’s worth noting that even if that were so, Bible-bangers needn’t worry that it disproves the existence of God; He, too, could have existed forever.

  14. SC: “No one is trying? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Bill is obviously unaware of Richard Lenski’s E. coli long-term evolution experiment.”

    He’s probably aware, and ready to object that it’s just “microevolution” if someone brings it up. That doesn’t make his parroted statements about evolution valid by any means, only that these people often know more than they let on. But they have a culture war to fight, and rarely attempt to conceal that their real objection to evolution has nothing to do with their alleged lack of evidence.

    Apologies that I don’t have the time or interest to read Bill’s letter, so if someone who has be so kind, my question is: Other than “God did something instead” does Bill give any clue to what he thinks happened, when? You know, did God do His magic in the water billions of years ago, in the “dust” more recently, yada yada? And does he “critically analyze” that alternate “theory” too?