Creationist Wisdom #673: Bibliology

Things are wild at the Reading Eagle of Reading, Pennsylvania — known as “The Pretzel City” because of numerous local pretzel bakeries. Today they’ve provided us with yet another letter-to-the-editor. This one is provocatively titled There’s more than one way to explain life’s origins, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We think he’s a chiropractor, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. His first name is Craig. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

The Darwinian theory of evolution is not the only theory used to explain the origin and evolution of all things, i.e [sic he meant e.g.], theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution is only one alternative. The other is all-out six-day creationism, which is also theistic, of course, but which excludes evolution. Anyway, Craig doesn’t care much for Darwin’s theory. He says:

The former [Darwin’s theory] is not religion, although it could be to some people. It is only science in the broadest sense. The scientific method cannot be applied to it.

Really? We always thought otherwise — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Craig explains why we’re wrong:

To create a hypothesis and then through deducting reasoning postulate through unprovable data to an unknown beginning is actually assumption.

That’s the most bewilderingly tangled sentence we’ve seen in a long time. Let’s read on:

It might be shocking to hear that biblical creationism is also a theory.

It’s shocking to anyone who knows what a scientific theory is — a testable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Craig continues:

The difference is that it [creationism] can become a fact through the veracity of the Bible.

Wow — creationism is the kind of theory that can become a fact. How does that happen? We’re told:

If one believes that the Bible is originated by the God Jehovah and is inerrant, then biblical creationism ceases to be a theory and becomes a fact. However, an individual can still refuse to believe if he so chooses.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You can refuse to believe a fact. Here’s more:

The issue then is not which theory a person chooses, but it is about the origin, truthfulness and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

Yes, that’s the issue. This is how the letter ends:

Before a choice is made, a study of bibliology is recommended.

Bibliology? That’s the sound someone makes when he slowly throws up. Oh, he means the study of the bible. Yes, that’s always recommended. Great letter, Craig!

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

6 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #673: Bibliology

  1. Another xtian showing his deep ignorance of science in general and evilution in particular. Instead of sating BS from their book o’BS why not do some experiments to show he is right!?!? Oh! Right!! He can’t as all he does is make up BS and say its true!

  2. Some of this reminds me of the 19th century Princeton Theology (see the article in Wikipedia), which tried to apply the Bacon philosophy of science to Biblical theology.

  3. To create a hypothesis and then through deducting reasoning postulate through unprovable data to an unknown beginning is actually assumption.

    That’s the most bewilderingly tangled sentence we’ve seen in a long time.

    The term you’re looking for is “word salad.”

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Okay, let’s say that I think the bible is inerrant. There still is the problem of omission. Simple things that would help creationists like missing creation days for all the kingdoms of life, or acknowledging they exist. Or that stars are so far away.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    Craig the letter writer advises: “Before a choice is made, a study of bibliology is recommended.”

    Calls to mind the very wise grammarian who advised: When dangling, watch your participles.”

  6. RetiedSciGuy

    Quoting letter-writer Craig:
    “To create a hypothesis and then through deducting reasoning postulate through unprovable data to an unknown beginning is actually assumption.”

    “Deducting reasoning”?? Maybe that’s Craig’s problem — he’s deducted way too much reasoning, and has none left.