Creationist Wisdom #592: God or Nothing

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Citizen of Dalton, Georgia, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It’s titled Some further food for thought. The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any yet.

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 Maynard. We wrote about one of his earlier letters a month ago — see Creationist Wisdom #579: We Were Deceived! Excerpts from his latest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Yes, by selective breeding, man has produced a variety of breeds among animals such as dogs, livestock, et al. But in spite of our extensive tinkering, they all continue to be dogs, livestock and et al. Nowhere, ever, have we found empirical proof that one species evolved into another. All we have is wishful thinking necessitated and predicated upon the false premise that we have had a time span of billions of years during which one species might have changed into another.

As with Maynard’s last letter, this one is another catalog of creationist clunkers, all of which we’ve debunked several times before, or are found in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. Because his arguments are so familiar, we won’t bother with any additional debunking. Maynard then says:

In that regard, please consider this: If our omniscient God and creator of all things designed an organic system that functioned perfectly in one of his creatures, why would he not use that fundamental design again and again in many different applications? In other words, the fact that we find similarities between species throughout nature is no more evidence for evolution than it is for a Universal Design Engineer who utilized a plethora of perfect designs and systems with great variety among animals throughout his world.

A “Universal Design Engineer.” Yes — oh yes! — that explains everything. Let’s read on:

Furthermore, scientists tell us that all matter, energy, time and space in the entire universe came from a supposed infinitely dense mass smaller than a BB that suddenly and mysteriously materialized out of “nothing” (if you can conceptualize “nothing”). Within seconds after its appearance (about 14 billion years ago) they say it began to expand in what scientists have named “the Big Bang.”

Gasp — that’s ridiculous compared to the simple explanation in Genesis! Maynard continues:

Within this unimaginable chaos of expansion and moving things there were untold gazillions of random collisions which gradually formed into the order of elements, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. They say gravity did most of this work, but we still don’t know how or why gravity does what it does. We can only marvel at how it came to be a finely-tuned force precisely calibrated to accomplish exactly what it does. If gravity was a tad stronger, or a tad weaker, it would not have done what it has done — and we would not be here.

Yeah, where would we be without gravity? Here’s more:

I tell you this to encourage you to think — by pointing out that it takes a lot of faith to believe what “science” has told us about origins. Accordingly, it seems to me, that regardless of which route you take, whether you decide to believe in creation or in evolution, the bottom line is totally a matter of faith, not proven fact.

Only a fool would disagree. And now we come to the end:

Faith in God. Or faith in … “nothing.” The choice is yours.

Well said, Maynard! Great letter.

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #592: God or Nothing

  1. “in spite of our extensive tinkering, they all continue to be dogs, livestock and et al. Nowhere, ever, have we found empirical proof that one species evolved into another.”
    Marvelous! Dogs are very busy evolving into another species, but are not there yet. Some of them still can interbreed with grey wolves; chihuahua’s not so much. How often do we meet a creacrapper so thoroughly refuting himself in less than two sentences?

    “(if you can conceptualize “nothing”)”
    Apparently god can. Before Gen 1:1 there was supposed to be nothing indeed. One of the very first verses even uses the word void.

    “Faith in God. Or faith in … “nothing.” The choice is yours.”
    Small correction: it’s rather “Faith in God and nothing” vs. “Faith in nothing.” See, before the creation there was nothing besides god. And out of nothing he, still according to Gen. 1:1, created Heaven and Earth. Or would Maynard reply that his god created Heaven and Earth out of himself? In that case we are all an integral part of god. As god can’t sin we, integral parts of god, can’t either.

  2. I’ll take ‘Nothing’ for 100, Alex…

  3. Ken Phelps

    “The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any yet.”

    That’s been fixed.

  4. Maynard claims “If our omniscient God and creator of all things designed an organic system that functioned perfectly in one of his creatures, why would he not use that fundamental design again and again in many different applications?”

    If Maynard knew anything about biology, he’d know that the alleged omniscient god thing (blessed be his/her/its name) hasn’t managed to produce a single organic system that functions perfectly in the several billions of years he/she/it is alleged to have been trying. And the fact they don’t function perfectly, especially as conditions change, is the reason they keep evolving!

  5. “In spite of our extensive tinkering, they all continue to be dogs, livestock and et al(sic). Nowhere, ever, have we found empirical proof that one species evolved into another.”

    But of course, we haven’t wanted to breed new species, and if we’d actually done it, creationists would (rightly, for once) point out that this proved nothing about natural, unguided evolution. (Before marching on the breeders with torches and pitchforks.)

    And it’s my understanding that the emergence of new species actually has been observed, and not just in microbes, either. See, for example, this article.

  6. @Eric Lipps
    YECs have embraced the idea of the evolution of species, and say that there is a larger category called a “kind” (something like a taxonomic family, sometimes called a “baramin”).
    One example of a new genus which has been bred is Tricicale, a cross between wheat and rye.

  7. Ah, baraminology is a very, very serious business.

    http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

    It’s also crap.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baraminology

    Baraminology gave mankind the splendid wisdom “evolution is possible within a certain bandwith”. In other words: it provides the dancefloor for the micro/macro mambo.

  8. Baramin is a typical result of a fundamentalist making something up and then claiming that it is in the Book.
    It ought to be a textbook example of the fault of ad hoc solutions.