Creationist Wisdom #586: Evolution Relies on Faith

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Salisbury Post of Salisbury, North Carolina. It’s titled Evolution cannot be the answer. The newspaper has a comments section.

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 we’ve got a preacher — The Rev. John Kahl, pastor of the New Life Lutheran Church. Excerpts from the rev’s letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Wishing something to be doesn’t make it reality no matter how enticing that idea might be. I realize that this sword cuts both ways in a debate regarding evolution and Christianity.

Indeed it does cut both ways. Then the rev says:

Evolution stems not from facts, but rather data as interpreted by one guiding principle — that there is no God. But that assumption is rather a foolish one; one that cannot be proven.

Wowie — evolution isn’t based on facts! Let’s read on:

To prove that there is no God, one would have to be omnipresent throughout the universe of which we have an extremely hard time leaving our own solar system. This is complicated by the existence of a God that is spiritual and therefore impossible to be detected, investigated, or analyzed by any scientific method.

This is brilliant! The non-existence of god can’t be proven, so that means evolution is absurd. The rev continues:

It is much easier to prove that God does exist. The question becomes, what evidence would one accept as reasonable proof?

Here comes the rev’s proof:

The moment we each die, God’s existence will be evident. The atheist will instantly be aware of their error and I will know that I am right. Playing the odds isn’t a saving faith but I have nothing to lose and an atheist has nothing to gain by maintaining our beliefs.

[*Groan*] It’s Pascal’s Wager. We haven’t seen that one for a long time. Here’s more:

Evolutionists rely on faith for their theory because there is no definitive evidence to support it. Deductive reasoning rests on two basic principles: the premises are true and the reasoning is valid. The starting point with evolutionary theory is that God doesn’t exist, so how did all this get here? I maintain that the premise is faulty and the reasoning inconsistent. Therefore the theory remains just that – a theory.

The members of the rev’s church are fortunate to have such a wise man as their spiritual leader. Moving along:

So, what about a 95% DNA similarity with chimps? Evolutionists have proposed similarities exceeding 99%. The human genome was fully mapped in 2001. The chimpanzee genome is still incomplete. The similarities exist between similar structures and profound differences remain. Realize that we share a 50% DNA similarity with a banana. Regardless of a similarity of 1, 5 or 10 percent, an evolutionist will claim this is proof of common descent when it could also just as well be explained by a common Creator.

Yeah — phooey on your evidence! Another excerpt:

Paul spoke more truth in the first chapter of Romans than evolutionists do in volumes, “Professing to be wise, they became fools [etc., etc.].

No one can argue with that! And now we come to the end:

Many people suppose truth can be determined by their mere opinions or by popular vote. Truth is much more eternal than that.

Great letter! Very impressive. A fine addition to our collection.

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

24 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #586: Evolution Relies on Faith

  1. To prove that there is no God, one would have to be omnipresent throughout the universe of which we have an extremely hard time leaving our own solar system.

    This canard really irritates me not only because of the obvious ignorance by the one who makes the argument of the simple reasoning exemplified in Russell’s teapot, it also displays ignorance of the arguer’s own position. The god of the Rev supposedly works on Earth in the present through things such as intercessory prayer and has supposedly worked here in the past through things such as Noah’s Flood, etc. Therefore by appeal to arguments and evidence here on Earth we can be conclusive about the Rev’s god. The teapot god argument only works in the weakest sense for a deistic, non-intervening god that never has or has had direct intervention on Earth.

  2. michaelfugate

    Professing to be wise, he became pastor at New Life Lutheran Church and is leading people astray…..

  3. Typical lying preacher, with little to no true understanding of science.
    When you can not show proof of a truth that is called lying, your ‘firmly held beliefs’ is meaningless….he stated…
    “It is much easier to prove that God does exist.” This is a lie, or they would be showing us proof rather than word salad.

  4. Pascal’s Wager is why I devote every waking hour to worshiping every conceivable god. You know, just in case.

  5. Some good news is that walmart is having a clearance sale on irony meters over the weekend. This might be a good time to stock up.

  6. I wonder if a Hindu proposed the same argument ie you cannot disprove the many Gods they believe in, what is answer would be? Probably tolerance and acceptance of a different view… Well, Dean has said irony meters are going cheap.

  7. Mark Germano believes he can break the bank at Monte Carlo:

    Pascal’s Wager is why I devote every waking hour to worshiping every conceivable god. You know, just in case.

    Yep, that’s how I figured to play it, too–until I found out just how many gods there have been thought to exist.

    If I could spend every second of every day (no stopping for sleep or any other activity) I’d still need 251.83 years just to give 1 second of worship to the complete Hindu pantheon alone, leave alone all the other polytheistic religions.

    So one can’t actually play Pascal’s Wager. The best one might do is play Pascal’s Russian Roulette, viz.: start working your way through the massive list of named dieties, devouting a full second of reverential worship to each, and hope that at the time you die that any actually-existing god was one that you managed to include in your fraction of worshipped dieties!

  8. Derek Freyberg

    On the bright side, most of the commenters to the rev’s little excursion from reality at the Post‘s website say much the sort of thing that our Curmudgeon and commenters say here. All is not lost in Salisbury.

  9. michaelfugate

    I love Pascal’s Russian Roulette, but it is much simpler to take the modern theologian “all-is-one” approach. Every transcendent experience is a contact with the divine (you can capitalize if so inclined) – so just go out and watch a sunset, hike the canyon or track the convergence of Jupiter and Venus. Much better than going to church.

  10. “Wishing something to be doesn’t make it reality no matter how enticing that idea might be.”
    I agree with the Good Rev (yes, my former favourite has lost this honorary title)! It especially applies to gods like the one the Good Rev worships. And sure enough the Good Rev provides an excellent example:

    “Evolution stems not from facts”
    Indeed, Good Rev, wishing this to be doesn’t make it reality no matter how enticing the idea might seem to you.

    “there is no definitive evidence to support it”
    Another brilliant gem! The Good Rev just admitted there is no definitive evidence for his god until we die:

    “The moment we each die, … the atheist will instantly be aware”
    And so will you, Good Rev, so will you – you will be aware – assuming that you will meet your Maker after you die indeed, which is still an open question – that your god is totally OK with evolution ….. His words will be the definitive answer.
    Oh, you dispute this? You think you can read the mind of your god? Go repent, you arrogant sinner.
    Please, I beg you, my dear SC – keep a close on my new Good Rev. I like him so much!

  11. Reflectory has found another gem:

    “to prove that there is no God, one would have to be omnipresent throughout the universe”
    The Universe is natural, by definition. The god of the Good Rev is supernatural, also by definition. So even if atheist me were omnipresent throughout the Universe I still would not be capable of disproving said god, because according to the Good Rev I still would be looking in the wrong places ……

  12. anevilmeme.

    (Raises hand). Um, how exactly does evolution being true disprove the existence of God?

  13. @Megalonyx has showed me the error of my ways.

    I will now focus my worship towards the Many-Faced God.

    Valar Morghulis.

  14. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

    This suggests:

    Designing doesn’t make it so.

  15. As others have pointed out, the Rev is another in the long line of creationists who have no clue the evolution they dread is about. He claims that the “guiding principle” of evolution is that there is no God, when, in fact, evolution is about the diversity of organisms, not gods. Granted, many people, including me, who accept the reality that evolution occurs and that natural selection is a major cause of it, have little interest in the Rev’s or other sky fairies, but that is not the basis of our acceptance of facts about evolution. As Reflectory pointed out above, there is lots of evidence, unrelated to evolution, that indicates that a sky fairy, if he/she/it exists, has no impact on the Earth.

  16. “Evolution stems not from facts, but rather data as interpreted by one guiding principle — that there is no God.”

    Holy Jesus! Does the Pope know about this? Somebody really should tell him soon. We can be sure he’d want to know.

  17. Therefore the theory remains just that – a theory.

    That’s like saying “A priceless diamond is just a priceless diamond.”

    “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Agreed.

  18. “To prove that there is no God, one would have to be omnipresent throughout the universe of which we have an extremely hard time leaving our own solar system. ”

    To prove there is no omnipresent Christian God one only has to be in one place. Anywhere will do.

  19. Dave Luckett

    Ah, retiredsciguy, telling a Lutheran that the Pope disagrees with him is like telling a Maoist that Ayn Rand was pretty sure he’s wrong.

  20. @Dave Luckett:
    Ah, yes. One God, indeed. Seems like there’s a Lutheran God, a Roman Catholic God, a Southern Baptist God, an Eastern Orthodox God, a Presbyterian God, a United Methodist God, an independent Methodist God, a Church of God God, a Church of Christ God, a Missouri Synod Lutheran God, an Episcopalian God, an Orthodox Jewish God, a …[trails off to infinity…]

  21. …which brings up a thought. If “God so loved the world,” why did He have His Son appear to just one relatively small band of goat herders in Judea?

    Wouldn’t it have been much more effective to have a simultaneous apparition to EVERY culture in the world? Just sayin’…..

  22. When you can not show proof of a truth that is called lying.

    Are you sure about that? My great grandfather told me that his wheat crops during the Civil War years were some of the best he ever had. Yet, I can’t prove that. So, does that make me a liar?

  23. Ah, yes. One God, indeed. Seems like there’s a Lutheran God, a Roman Catholic God,

    I enjoyed the Maoist & Ayn Rand joke but this follow-up went over my head. Not sure how to interpret the sarcasm and ultimate meaning of what you are saying: Each group has a different definition of God???

    I’ve had students of every background and viewpoint but I can’t recall any who considered each denomination to have a different definition of God or to be referring to different gods. (You listed a series of Christian denominations but then added “Orthodox Jewish God”, which was all the more curious.) I’m not too old to be surprised–but you have indeed surprised me on this one.

    This isn’t a comparative religion class so I don’t expect a tangent on the fine points of a joke. But it is not often that I miss a punchline. (Or perhaps I do but don’t know it.)

  24. To prove that there is no God, one would have to be omnipresent throughout the universe of which we have an extremely hard time leaving our own solar system. This is complicated by the existence of a God that is spiritual and therefore impossible to be detected, investigated, or analyzed by any scientific method.

    I see. To prove that there is no God is impossible because the existence of God cannot be proven “by any scientific method.” What methods, then, are available? Basically, blind faith.

    I’m reminded of the old story about the man who asked a priest what God was doling before he created the universe. The priest’s reply: “Creating Hell for people who ask questions like that!”