Creationist Wisdom #593: Banging Rocks

Today’s second — yes, second! — letter-to-the-editor appears in the Spectrum, published in St. George, Utah. It’s titled His evidence is everywhere. An icon beneath the headline will get you to the newspaper’s comments section. There are no comments 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 John. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Some people believe in the Big Bang, whereby random collisions of rocks (inorganic) resulted in life (organic).

Ah, now we understand! The word “bang” in Big Bang must refer to the sound of those colliding rocks as they create life. Then John informs us:

Science does not answer where the matter came from.

John doesn’t know about Nucleosynthesis. Let’s read on:

This Big Bang supposedly resulted in this world, which just happened to be the right distance from the sun and moon (climate and gravity) and other planets to maintain celestial order. Talk about needing faith (imagination).

Lucky for us. Or was it more than luck? John continues:

The big bang concept of how life began is THEORY, never proven by facts and evidence.

Ooooooooh — then the theory that the big bang created life is worthless! Don’t you feel like a fool, dear reader? Here’s more:

Yet, if God wanted this start, an omnipotent being can do anything. God is the only means by which life is created – not by random forces (who would have created such forces?) banging rocks together.

Perfectly obvious. We must admit that we always had secret doubts about the theory of banging rocks. Moving along:

Some people further believe that from single-cell organisms came all forms of life, including man. Wait, it is called the THEORY of evolution, never proven by facts and evidence. Efforts to prove this theory have failed on many levels (i.e., apes are still apes).

Good point — why are there still apes? We think John should have used “e.g.” but his letter is so splendid otherwise that it would be petty to quibble about his Latin abbreviations. Another excerpt:

Belief in unproven theories is not letting science lead, and requires far more “faith” (imagination) than accepting that God created this world and all life.

So true! And now we come to the end:

I use my intellect, heart and senses to know this is His work – the evidence is everywhere.

John must know what he’s talking about. Why else would the Spectrum have published his 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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #593: Banging Rocks

  1. “Some people believe in the Big Bang, whereby random collisions of rocks (inorganic) resulted in life (organic).”

    I can’t stop laughing!

  2. “Talk about needing faith (imagination).”

    So, then, it’s settled. Faith is synonymous with imagination.

  3. Stephen Kennedy

    It is amazing how someone with absolutely no understanding of the Big Bang Theory is so willing to make his laughable ignorance public for all to see.

    I do not see how John could have made it through even the 8th grade with his knowledge of science. Yet, these 8th grade drop outs are somehow convinced that they know more about Astronomy than someone with a PhD in the subject.

  4. Poor John, he has such a weak understanding of reality. As someone (Abraham Lincoln, or Mark Twain) is alleged to have said “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”.

  5. The big bang concept of how life began is THEORY, never proven by facts and evidence.

    Let’s leave aside John’s ignorance of what a theory actually is; that’s practically a requirement for creationists, so he can’t be singled out for blame.

    The Big Bang isn’t supposed to tell ius “how life began”; it addresses the more fundamental question of how the universe began. And scientists don’t just take it for granted. There was, for example, the competing theory of “continuous creation” of matter, championed by, amnong others, astronomer Fred Hoyle. But, contrary to what john says, evidence has steadily mounted in favor of the Big Bang, until there is now more solid evidence that it happened than there is that Jesus was crucified, or indeed was even born. (The story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection bears suspicious resemblances to the Greek myths of Heracles, better known as Hercules–divine birth and all–and the Greeks were among the first non-Jews to have a hand in compiling the Christian Bible.)

  6. Dave Luckett

    John is an embarrassment to creationism, and an asset to rational enquiry. I actually mean that.

    The really nasty politicals at the DI or AiG or ICR would wince if they read that screed. The invincible arrogance and ignorance are so stark, so staring, the reliance on religion so plain, that John’s letter amounts to demonstrating a fact: “Creationism is a religious doctrine, believed by people who know nothing of the science.”

    Frank J reminds us that there are different categories of creationists, and that one of the important criteria for assigning those categories is political savvy. Politics, we are told, is the art of the possible. The dangerous creationists understand and apply that principle. They have an immediate objective, one that is possible. They want their religion taught in the public schools as a rival to science. That’s not John’s objective, which is far simpler: he wants to dismiss and hence destroy science, about which he knows absolutely nothing, and replace it with his religion.

    So John should be welcomed. What he wants is so manifestly disastrous, and his opinion is so obviously uninformed, that he can be instantly dismissed by practically everyone.

    Practically everyone. But practically everyone is enough.

    Now, you can say that John lies on an axis, and the “critics of evolution” and “different interpreters of the evidence” are only somewhat less extreme. That’s true. But they are attempting to undermine a wall of fact, while John is simply running flat-out into it at it as if it wasn’t there. Not only do they have a chance of some success while he has none at all, his attempts call defenders to the wall, while theirs are stealthy.

    They would prefer that John STFU, and just sends money. We, therefore, should prefer that he makes as much noise as possible.

  7. As Douglas Adams faithfully transcribed from a broadcast of Intergalactic Radio:

    “We’ll be saying a big hello to all intelligent lifeforms everywhere and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys.”

  8. Voice from Above

    Don’t be too quick to dismiss the Banging Rocks theory.

  9. @Dave Luckett
    They want their religion taught in the public schools as a rival to science.
    To quibble: Is that precisely their objective? Isn’t it mostly that they don’t like that there is a science which they don’t want people to hear about. The fear is that if people will hear about the science, then they will realize that there is nothing to rival it.
    No one has even suggested an alternative to common descent to account for major varieties in the world of life. Evolutionary biology has exposed the major fault in natural theology, that natural theology does not account for anything. Before Darwin, that was pointed out to no effect, for the natural theologian could well say, “if I don’t account for anything, that is no fault, for you don’t account for anything, either.” Natural theology was up to the standard of the day. Darwin changed the standard, by accounting for major features of the world of life, and the developments in evolutionary biology have expanded that vastly. Natural theology has been left as irrelevant. The ID-ers and others don’t want that to become widely known.
    They could respond to the challenge by offering an alternative, but no one has come up with an alternative. If ID were presented as a “rival” to science, everyone would realize that, where science accounts for “why do humans have eyes like other vertebrates, rather than like insects” (just to take one relatively minor point), “that’s the way that God wanted it, and God gets what he wants” does not begin to account for it.
    But if they they could reduce the coverage of science to, say, “how does science account for the Cambrian explosion” (something that is beyond the capacity of K-12 to address), then natural theology, although not having an answer, is not perceived as not being up to the standard.

  10. I think this is the stupidest, or at least most ignorant letter, yet. Can we give the man a prize?

  11. “The really nasty politicals at the DI or AiG or ICR would wince if they read that screed.”

    I’d like to think that–but I just don’t know. Perhaps they feel reassured that as long as their followers are that clueless, their cash-flow scheme is secure. After all, science-illiteracy among the gullible is essential to the survival of those origins-industry tycoons. [Perhaps the word “tycoon” is now archaic, and I am as well for choosing it. ]

    My webpages usually focus on the dishonest YECist and IDist leaders because I generally view their followers as victims. Yet, obviously, the followers who choose to “celebrate” their ignorance with such arrogant outbursts are fully culpable for their folly, especially when the Internet makes investigation of the science and the systematically catalogued rejoinders as simple as a visit to TalkOrigins. A truly honest person who cares about the truth of what they copy-and-paste will make a least a little bit of effort to fact-check. We hope.

    At least these days I’m starting to get feedback from a few evangelical leaders willing to talk about this problem (if I bring it up first.) Some are very aware of this “Lying for Jesus” phenomenon and the damage done by Ken Ham and Stephen Meyer and their respective peanut galleries. All are concerned about the false dichotomy bombs and destructive Molotov cocktails which keep making the news. I’m referring to the crazy uncle who somebody let out of the attic without his meds and got cloned by the millions problem which is well illustrated by today’s latest denialist letter featured by S.C. (interesting be he) for our edification (to whom we give thanks.)

    For those who aren’t following the series 140 Million YECs and Counting but plan to binge-watch it on Netflix someday, you may not want to read what appears below as I give away a major plot point.

    Add to that “Lying for Jesus” crazy-uncle got out of the attic and won’t take his meds problem, this week’s long-anticipated episode: Kent Hovind is out on parole. There are sure to be some dramatic moments after the yellow ribbons are removed from the oak trees and all of the balloons get popped. Watch for lots of fireworks as Daddy Dr. Dino sees for himself first hand just how much Jr. Hovind has done to revamp the family business. By all measures of YECdom-ness, Eric Hovind took it all mainstream, shooting for just a little bit less craziness [barely a single cryptozoology critter claim in sight!] and a lot more 3D video graphics on steroids. (That opening title-card animation sizzles! The new video software really paid off.) Yes, my BSF undercover operatives tell me that Jr. Dino is about to tell Daddy Dr. Dino that “Thar’s gold in them thar hills and cuz Jr. found ’em, Jr. iz gonna keep ’em. Hands off my grubstakes, Pops!” OK, considering that 140 Million YECs and Counting ain’t no HBO show, don’t expect a Game of Thrones-worthy culmination. And the only House of Hovind bloodbath you’re going to see is the exponentially exaggerated “Scientists are finding lots of fresh blood in wonderfully preserved dinosaur bones!” exclamations of Daddy Dr. Dino as he tries to catch up for time lost in the slammer. He’s gonna show Jr. exactly how to “Look a-gander to find and milk the most propa-gander.” But we can expect Jr. to spin the pseudo-science in his own homespun ways.

    [To be continued…..]

  12. It doesn’t take a visit to the enemy,, Wikipedia, etc., to know better than some of the stuff. One can hear about speciation from YEC sources.

  13. “we always had secret doubts about the theory of banging rocks”
    Plus a gangbang of rocks is obviously immoral.

    I agree with DL: “John is an embarrassment to creationism”.
    Indeed he’s rather our ally. We should never forget the refusal of the IDiots to teach people like John. Actually AIG tries though.

  14. Dave Luckett

    TomS, we need to distinguish between immediate and ultimate objectives and between fools and professionals. I think it is clear that an immediate objective of the professionals is to subvert public education by having a religious doctrine taught as if it were science, in public school science classes. Further down that track, they would remove science from an average education altogether, possibly by removing students from the public schools – to home school them or send them to “charter schools” which are accountable to nobody about what they teach, yet are still supported by the taxpayer.

    Those objectives are conceivably possible. After all, there are already such things. it’s only to shift the cursor further over.

    Their ultimate objective is theocracy. They want rule by the saints, which is to say, themselves. Thus far, they agree. What would happen next is horrible to contemplate.

    Now John, he isn’t that far along. John’s an idiot, in the old Greek sense of the word – it means “a private person”, that is, one who has no public interest. He doesn’t know squat, and what he thinks he knows he doesn’t like. He’d be a good footsoldier, but John has no clue about anything more complex than his immediate wants. Not about science, as is painfully obvious from his missive, but not about history, either. He wants religion to rule, but he has never thought – could never think – about what that actually means. To him, “religion” means his religion. He has never examined the idea that there are real differences amounting to bitter divides even within Protestantism, let alone within Christianity. It hasn’t even crossed his mental horizon to ask what resulted from such differences, in the past. He knows what’s right, and he knows what he wants, and it cannot occur to him that the two might not be the same.

    The godfathers of creationism know more, but they are tacticians, at least. There’s an old Russian proverb, quoted by no less an authority than Josef Stalin: “It is permitted to walk with the Devil until you get to the end of the bridge”. The godfathers will march lockstep arm-in-arm until the precise instant when they don’t need each other any more.

    If the Enlightenment runs true to form, they’ll never get to the end of that bridge. So, to mix a metaphor, they’ll stay in what Frank J calls “the Big Tent” and, to mix another one, use salami tactics – getting there a little slice at a time, they hope. John, he wants the whole enchillada right now, and they wish he wouldn’t write to the papers to tell people about it.