Creationist Wisdom #661: An Old Favorite Returns

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Worthington Daily Globe of Worthington, Minnesota. The letter is titled Some problems with evolution. The newspaper doesn’t have a comments section.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so ordinarily we wouldn’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. But this one is an exception. His name is Mike Bogle. We thought it had a familiar ring, so we did a search. Aha — he wrote one of the earliest letters in our collection, seven years ago: Creationist Wisdom — Example Nineteen.

At that time we hadn’t yet adopted our policy of not naming letter-writers, so we somehow remembered him. A month later, we wrote about another of his letters: Creationist Wisdom — Example 26. It’s good to encounter yet another Bogle letter. Excerpts from his latest will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

C.S. Lewis, the famous apologist, said, “If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing could exist now.” This agrees with the first law of thermodynamics. Matter is neither being created nor destroyed, which means it had to be all created at one time by something — or “one” — outside the system.

We usually don’t encounter the First Law of thermodynamics in creationist arguments. Even if that Lewis quote is accurate (we haven’t checked), it’s irrelevant, because the Big Bang theory, which we assume Bogle is addressing, doesn’t say there was ever a time when nothing existed.

So much for the first problem with evolution — which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. What other problems does Bogle see? He says:

The next problem is life. The first life form would have to be a plant. Then, at some point, it become an animal. This is so improbable considering the high hurdle that DNA/RNA places between species and the idea that random mutations (almost always harmful) could produce males and females in thousands of species truly requires a fairy tale mentality. Life violates the second law of thermodynamics, making it of supernatural origin.

We love this guy! Let’s read on:

The next problem is time. Scientist agree that 20 billion years (calculated by the speed of light and the size of the universe) is not adequate time to arrive at the human brain. Either evolution is wrong, or we have a profound misunderstanding of time.

Uh huh — “scientists agree.” Stay with us, dear reader, Bogle’s problem list continues:

The next problem is universally understood by scientists is the lack of fossil evidence. Darwin himself said, “The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory we’ve no doubt somewhere accumulated before the Cambrian epoch, is very great.”

Right — there’s no fossil evidence. By the way, we searched Origin of Species and couldn’t find that quote. How very surprising. Here’s more:

The presence of physical evidence is also a problem. A case in point: my 10-year old daughter came home from school and informed me that men did not live in the days of dinosaurs.

Aha — a challenge from a little girl! How did Bogle deal with it? Just watch:

I proceeded to open my big book, “Mysteries of the Unexplained,” and showed her the clear photos of human footprints alongside — and even in dinosaur prints — in the limestone bed of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In both of his earlier letters, Bogle mentioned that same “evidence,” and seven years later he’s still doing it! That “evidence” is so bad, even ol’ Hambo recommends against using it — see AIG on the Paluxy River Footprints. Moving along, he tells us that the book he showed to his little girl has even more evidence:

A normal size print of 10 feet by 4 feet was quarried in 1816 near St. Louis from 270 million-year-old limestone. Three moccasin prints were found in 100 million-year-old magnesium limestone near the Little Cheyenne River in South Dakota. There are 10 pages of human footprint anomalies and giant human remains from around the world.

Amazing, huh? Another excerpt:

A History Channel series on giant human remains from around the world said the Smithsonian Museum has a large collection of giant human remains in its basement. Why are they not on display? They do not fit the evolutionary narrative. Science like religions have their cults and cult figures who control the message to the detriment of their adherents.

The History Channel is loaded with “documentaries” about Nostradamus, and “exposés” about haunted houses, ancient astronauts, bigfoot, and other nonsense, so if they had a show on ancient giants, it wouldn’t be surprising. Bogle’s letter concludes with some evidence from the bible:

Genesis 6:4 says, “There were giants on the Earth in those days (before the flood) and also after that…” It appears the Bible was right again.

So there you are, dear reader. It’s comforting to know that some things never change.

Copyright © 2016. 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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #661: An Old Favorite Returns

  1. This guy is comic gold.

  2. “There are 10 pages of human footprint anomalies and giant human remains from around the world.”
    Indeed, lest we forget the Cardiff giant fraud of circus fame. Fundies rushed to support that imaginary figure and were terribly disappointed when the hoax was revealed.

  3. The stupid within him great it is!

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    “A normal size print of 10 feet by 4 feet ” HUH? The footprint was that big?

  5. Derek Freyberg

    The sad thing is that the writer is trying to instill into his daughter the same nonsense he believes in. It’s all very well to be willfully ignorant of evolution (unwise, but probably doesn’t matter a whole lot in everyday life in Worthington, unless you teach biology), but to try to lower your children to your level is not good.

  6. That quotation of Darwin appears, approximately, in the fourth edition of “Origins”, but about the Silurian, rather than Cambrian.

  7. michaelfugate

    Wouldn’t you love to see a book on creationism or even Christianity with a section entitled “Problems with creationism/Christianity – what it doesn’t explain or what is not in accord with the facts”?

  8. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing could exist now.
    I tried to find a citation for that from CS Lewis. I did find some references to it, but none which give the precise work. No particular reason to doubt that he once wrote something like that. And, I have tp admit, it isn’t worth the effort to track it down.

  9. michaelfugate

    The something that always existed need not be a god….

  10. One thing I learned from mathematics is that one must be careful in talking about infinity.

  11. The next problem is life. The first life form would have to be a plant. Then, at some point, it become an animal. This is so improbable considering the high hurdle that DNA/RNA places between species and the idea that random mutations (almost always harmful) could produce males and females in thousands of species truly requires a fairy tale mentality. Life violates the second law of thermodynamics, making it of supernatural origin.

    Groan. Where to begin?

    The “first life form” didn’t “have to be a plant.” Plants and animals evolved away in different directions from a primitive ancestor which fit into neither category.

    The “high hurdle” between species isn’t that high, considering the large number of hybrids. And they’re not all sterile, either: for instance, although male mules are indeed sterile, their female counterparts can sometimes produce offspring with horses or donkeys, a demonstrated example of Haldane’s rule, which (simplified; the above article is a mite jargon-heavy) states that if in a hybrid one sex is almost always missing or sterile, it’s the one with non-matching sex chromosomes (XY in mammals, ZW in birds, and so on).

    As for the second-law argument, that has been beaten so thoroughly that it hardly needs further flogging.

    Oh, and about that “supernatural origin”: there is no such thing as the “supernatural,” because anything that exists is by definition part of nature. That would apply even to vampires, werewolves and zombies, if they existed. Anything we can’t explain under our current understanding of natural law simply indicates that our understanding is flawed, not that something, or Someone, is overriding the laws of nature.

  12. SC: “Uh huh — ‘scientists agree’.”

    Note that right above that you quoted Bogle – and I checked to confirm that you quoted correctly – as writing “SCIENTIST agree.” Over 10 years ago I noticed a curiously common use of the singular for the plural among science-deniers. As well as an equally curiously common use of the word “evidenceS.”

    I have some thoughts as to why that’s so, but I’d like to hear others.