Creationist Wisdom #642: Open Minded Student

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the San Marcos Daily Record of San Marcos, Texas. The letter is titled Creationism will give students freedom of choice. The newspaper doesn’t have a comments feature.

Because today’s 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 Logan. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I am a college student at Texas A&M University, but I am originally from San Marcos, Texas. I have an extremely sturdy belief in Christianity and Creationism.

It’s good to be told right up front what we’re dealing with. Logan says:

After doing research over Creationism, I have found that it is more logical to believe the Creationist’s perspective rather than believe that all forms of life that exist today were formed from preexisting organisms. These organisms evolved as a group above the species level, which is known as a taxonomic group. The belief that taxonomic groups can evolve as a whole is what Evolutionists believe as well as Atheists and Agnostics.

That’s clumsily stated, but it’s the familiar micro-macro mambo. Let’s read on:

Evolutionists not only believe that evolution can occur above the species level, but they also have their own opinion about how the earth was created. While all Creationists are consistent in believing that God created the earth, and all biotic and abiotic components that either exist or previously existed in the past, not all Evolutionists believe the same concept.

All creationists are consistent. You didn’t know that, did you? Logan continues:

Some Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang Theory, in which the universe instantaneously expanded beyond light speed capabilities. This theory is to be believed that if the Big Bang actually did happen, then it is still occurring today, because there is evidence that the universe is still expanding. Other Evolutionists believe that the universe created itself, for example Steven Hawking said, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

That’s inconsistent? We don’t see it, but let’s not quibble. This is where it gets good:

In my opinion, if one hundred percent of a group stand and believe in one argument like the Creationists do, rather than have different views within the same group, like the evolutionists, then it is a more solidified argument to believe the highest percentage within a single group. In other words, Creationists come together with the same belief, and although their numbers might not be higher, at least the majority of their group can agree on almost every topic that involves the group as a whole. Creationists, unlike Evolutionists, have something to believe, something to hope for, and that is why it is so hard to break the bond between them and their God.

Good point — fifty million creationists can’t be wrong! Here’s more:

When discussing the debates that have occurred over Creation versus Evolution, most people believe that the debate is over how each party’s evidence proves how the earth was created. Ken Ham, who is an Australian-American Creationist and Christian Fundamentalist, he is very well known as the President of Answers in Genesis and an amazing Christian Speaker in the United States, displayed that in his creation article that both parties are using the exact same evidence, the only thing they are really arguing over is how the neutral evidence affects their arguments, as well as how they view the evidence.

There’s more to it than that. We discussed Hambo’s position in Ken Ham: The Battle of Worldviews. Okay, brace yourself — the best is yet to come:

The main difference when Creationists and Evolutionists debate, other than their actual argument, is that Creationists go into the argument with an open mind and willing to listen to the other party and try to understand why they believe their claims. While the Evolutionists go into the argument with their mind already made up and the only thing they actually do during an argument is attack the Creationist’s claims.

Yes, the creationists are open minded. That’s why Logan started his letter saying: “I have an extremely sturdy belief in Christianity and Creationism.” Moving along:

So, to summarize the generality of most of the Creation versus Evolution debates that have taken place; Creationists will provide evidence that supports their argument and then the Evolutionists will attack that evidence and attempt to make a scientific explanation for this claim. There are times when Evolutionists do not give any evidence that supports their argument; they usually find themselves too busy worrying about the other party’s claims. The Evolutionist’s argue over the facts that Creationist’s claims are not valid, instead of bringing their own claims forward using the evidence they found.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another excerpt:

I think it’s time for this country to finally make a decision to once and for all end this controversy. The government needs to allow both theories of the creation of the world into public schools, so that there are no violations of the first amendment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And now we come to the end of the letter:

There is no reason why both Creationism and Evolutionism should not be taught because they are both theories and both require some faith to believe, because there is no absolute way that someone could prove that one is true and the other is false. The day where Creationism is approved to be taught in schools across the nation, will not only be a blessing, but the students will be given the freedom of choice to believe how the earth was created.

Logan certainly seems sincere. As for the rest of it, you can decide for yourself, 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

23 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #642: Open Minded Student

  1. Logan directs the herd:

    if one hundred percent of a group stand and believe in one argument like the Creationists do, rather than have different views within the same group, like the evolutionists, then it is a more solidified argument to believe the highest percentage within a single group.

    So, if you happened to be at Jonestown on 18 November 1978, and 100% of the folks around you are in agreement to drink the Kool-Aid, then who are you to dare abstain?

  2. Is this, SC, a record for the amount of use of bold font for emphasis?

  3. Uh, aren’t Creationist defined by their common belief (in nonsense, but it is common), so how can the fact that they have a belief in common be used as an indicator of their correctness? If they believe in creation, then they are “in.” If they do not, then they are not a creationists and they do not get counted. Yep, 100% of creationists believe in creation. Amazing agreement, better than the climate scientists measly 98% agreement in man-made climate change.

  4. “The main difference when Creationists and Evolutionists debate, other than their actual argument, is that Creationists go into the argument with an open mind and willing to listen to the other party and try to understand why they believe their claims. While the Evolutionists go into the argument with their mind already made up and the only thing they actually do during an argument is attack the Creationist’s claims.”

    ” Creationists will provide evidence that supports their argument and then the Evolutionists will attack that evidence and attempt to make a scientific explanation for this claim. There are times when Evolutionists do not give any evidence that supports their argument; they usually find themselves too busy worrying about the other party’s claims. The Evolutionist’s argue over the facts that Creationist’s claims are not valid, instead of bringing their own claims forward using the evidence they found.”

    Deary me! He’s got it all backwards!

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Does one have to go farther than a few letters to refute his premise? “YEC vs. OEC”

  6. So would rather believe he is descended from some dude molded from worm schite by an incompetent creator! And then the perfect creation became what we are now because some brighter then average woman decided to get knowledge!

  7. While the Evolutionists go into the argument with their mind already made up and the only thing they actually do during an argument is attack the Creationist’s claims.

    Perhaps Logan can cite some actual scientific papers where the “evolutionist” author/s attacks creationism? I’ve yet to encounter any instance where this is true. Books and articles do point out the fallacies of creationism, true, and well deserved, but Logan seems to be missing the boat, Ark or otherwise. It would appear more that the attack is on the other side, stretching the argument beyond reason, then claiming martyrdom, and finally hiding behind their god’s skirt.

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    Logan submits:

    I am a college student at Texas A&M University, but I am originally from San Marcos, Texas.

    Oh, how wonderful it is to hear that Logan has these amazing facts committed to memory. Some of us recall that we were not allowed to leave the yard without having a note specifying our name, destination, and return address pinned to our shirt.

  9. “After doing research over Creationism”
    And what did that “research” consist of? Reading creacrap sites?

    “Some Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang Theory”
    At which point I cannot help wonder which study Logan has chosen. I doubt if it’s either biology or physics.

    “There is no reason why both Creationism and Evolutionism should not be taught”
    Perhaps that’s not such a bad idea after all, as I am under the impression that Logan wasn’t taught Evolutionism in the broadest meaning of the word – including biology and physics, given his bloopers.

  10. “because there is no absolute way that someone could prove that one is true and the other is false.”
    I like how the difficulty in proving a negative is somehow proof that both are equally plausible. I mean, shouldn’t we then also include Last Thursdayism?

  11. In my opinion, if one hundred percent of a group stand and believe in one argument like the Creationists do, rather than have different views within the same group, like the evolutionists, then it is a more solidified argument to believe the highest percentage within a single group

    I’d like to propose this forever be known as the “Lemming Argument”. Hey everybody is going off the cliff! It can’t possibly result in an agonizing death, everyone is doing it! (Yes I realize lemmings don’t actually do this)

  12. Reality isn’t a multiple choice test Logan.

  13. So ashamed to be an Aggie today. Hopefully he isn’t a pre vet major.

  14. michaelfugate

    Maybe Logan’s mind was so open it fell out….

  15. @nmgirl: Nah, no reason to be ashamed. Logan should be ashamed, if anyone.

  16. Logan claims “no absolute way that someone could prove that one is true and the other is false.” How about the fact that evolution has an overwhelming amount of data that is consistent with it and creationism has none. While that doesn’t prove one and disprove the other in a formal logic argument, it does indicate that one accurately describes reality and the other doesn’t. I leave it as an exercise to the student to figure out which one.

  17. Which god? Which creation story? If you teach one, Logan, you have to teach them all.

  18. There is no reason why both Creationism and Evolutionism should not be taught because they are both theories and both require some faith to believe, because there is no absolute way that someone could prove that one is true and the other is false. The day where Creationism is approved to be taught in schools across the nation, will not only be a blessing, but the students will be given the freedom of choice to believe how the earth was created.

    That’s about like saying students will be given the freedom of choice to decide whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.

    If the day comes when “Creationism is approved to be taught in schools across the nation,” it will be a nightmare, not a blessing, for it will mean the Constitution, common sense and of course two hundred years’ worth of actual science have all been thrown into the garbage.

  19. Troy: good point. Perhaps the “lemming test” should be invoked in cases like Kitzmiller.

  20. Troy, who is indeed to be thanked for naming the ‘Lemming Argument’, correctly notes:

    I realize lemmings don’t actually do this

    Indeed–but the source for the widespread misconception is that arch-fiend and criminal mastermind, Walt Disney.

    It’s a shocking tale: Lemmings don’t commit mass suicide, Disney pushed them off a cliff

  21. I’d like to remind everybody that there is no alternative to be taught, no account of what happens so that life turns out as it does, if evolution isn’t involved.
    Despite that, there are multiple answers, with no known way of deciding, as to when, from over a span of 6 days about 6000 years ago, through all sorts of other answers, including that is a pathetic level of detail.
    What a hopeless mess would it be to teach that.