Creationist Wisdom #681: Two Letters

Neither of these letters is sufficient for us, but the two together should provide some amusement. The first is in the Brainerd Dispatch of Brainerd, Minnesota, titled Already a theocracy. The newspaper doesn’t seem to have 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. His first name is Phil. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Some earlier letters expressed concern that America might become a theocracy. I submit that in one respect, America is already a theocracy which employs tight control over academia and big media.

Really, Phil? Tell us more:

Evolutionism says that primordial slime, without the aid of outside intellectual input, got real smart and fashioned molecular systems that exceed the complexity of IBM and Microsoft’s computer languages and operating systems. Evolution is religion masquerading as science. It takes a lot of “faith” to believe in that kind of “religion.”

After some quote-mining, Phil’s letter ends with this:

One of three statements carved in stone above the University of Minnesota’s Cyrus Northup Auditorium entrance reads: “Dedicated to the advancement of learning and the search for truth.” I look forward to the day when American universities and big media will be released from the theocratic tyranny of Evolutionism’s religious “thought police” so they can freely choose to comply with that statement in stone.

Yeah, we know — that wasn’t very good. The other letter we found is in the La Crosse Tribune of La Crosse, Wisconsin. The city’s name originated from the game played by Native Americans there. The letter is titled There’s no logic in evolution, and the author’s name is David. The newspaper has a comments feature. Here we go:

If millions of years have gone by, could the following ever happen? All the parts of a 2010 Cadillac are lying in a heap in a canyon. A cyclone stirs up all the parts of this vehicle. When this cyclone subsides — presto! — all the parts have been “blown” together — correctly. This 2010 Cadillac appears and it is completely assembled. Of course, the odds of this ever happening will remain an impossibility — forever.

Yet another creationist relies on the junkyard tornado argument. Let’s read on:

If we believed in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, people would say that we are not of sound mind.

David hasn’t thought that through to its inevitable conclusion, and he probably never will. He continues, but we’ll re-sequence his paragraphs to present his view more coherently:

We can imagine anything in our minds (including that which would be an impossibility), but we shouldn’t expect anyone to believe of accept imaginative thought as fact.

Uh huh — like Adam & Eve and Noah’s Ark. Here’s more:

The human body is immeasurably more complex than any vehicle, yet a few creator-deniers have deceived themselves by believing in a myriad of impossibilities from their imaginations. Evolution will always remain an impossibility.

Here’s the letter’s conclusion:

Read the first sentence of the Bible. It says this: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.”

No Easter bunny or Santa Claus for David. He’s smart!

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #681: Two Letters

  1. And Davie, the essential difference between between the tooth fairy and the sky fairy is what, exactly?

  2. The tornado thing, isn’t that what Phil’s deity did? Took dust & dirt and instantaneously molded it into humans? “Of course, the odds of this ever happening will remain an impossibility — forever.”

  3. Evolutionism says that primordial slime, without the aid of outside intellectual input, got real smart and fashioned molecular systems that exceed the complexity of IBM and Microsoft’s computer languages and operating systems.

    Getting smarter than Microsoft Windows? Not sure that’s much of an accomplishment.

  4. BTW, many Hebrew scholars contend that that opening of the Bible is better translated as something like, “When God began to create …” or “In beginning God’s creation of …”.

  5. TomS, overall, pretending that Genesis 1:1 is “clear” in what it says is an exercise in futility – few passages have as many divergent manuscripts, or as many signs have been edited and fooled around with, which is unsurprising as it’s presented not as a didactic order of events, but as a poem.

  6. I love that argument! ‘Evolution’ is bogus because it’s just another religion! I chuckle.

  7. I love it too, especially since creationism is all about religion. What is this, a backhanded confession that “intelligent design” is a fraud? We knew that already.

  8. Tugs N. McCowan

    Where does all of this American anti-intellectualism come from?