Rev. David Rives — Photosynthesis Didn’t Evolve

Buffoon Award

While political conventions dominate the news, we couldn’t depend upon the sirens and flashing lights of the Drool-o-tron™ to inform us of the arrival of something on the internet. We had to shut the thing down because of all political clutter.

Naturally, we visited the website of WorldNetDaily (WND), always a good source of creationist blather. As you know, WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.

There we found the latest video from the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. It was announced with this headline: How is photosynthesis proof of God’s work?. In a rare coincidence, that’s also the title of the rev’s video.

The rev tells us that without photosynthesis, all the energy in sunlight would be wasted, and life would be impossible. That’s amazing! Photosynthesis is very complicated, and everything has to work just the right way for plants to convert sunlight and CO2 into useful energy. All the components in the plant’s cells have to work together in perfect harmony. Such a system couldn’t have evolved over millions of years. The answer is in Genesis — plants were all created at once!

The rev is once again wearing his blue bible-boy suit, but without a necktie. With or without a tie, he’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! This information-packed video is four minutes long, and it’s well worth your time, so click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

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

17 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Photosynthesis Didn’t Evolve

  1. What fraction of the Sun’s energy is used in photosynthesis?

    Is the rest of it wasted? (That’s his word.) Isn’t that saying something about God’s creation, that it is wasted?

  2. Does he make this drivel up or does he have someone writing it for him? I don’t think he can even spell photosynthesis.

  3. If photosynthesis is so great, why wasn’t I made to eat the sun and poop air?

  4. I suppose the rev hasn’t a clue that there are a dozen or more forms of photosynthesis, many of which are in bacteria and some of which have other by-products than 02. (Oh, I forgot, that can’t be true ’cause the holey bubble doesn’t mention it). And as TomS alluded to above, a very tiny fraction of the photons the sun produces reach the earth. The rest, as far as the blessed creator’s allegedly favorite species is concerned is wasted. Most engineers can design things more efficiently.

  5. Please, my dear Rev, could you go back to your 90 seconds videos? You can’t expect from your biggest fan to have an attention span (for you) that exceeds 2 minutes.
    I would be so grateful.

  6. A really good designer would have made green people!

  7. Or better yet, dead-black ones, deep-shadow-black, to absorb all the sunlight that its them. But then, there’d be a problem with overheating . . . wait a minute, don’t we have that anyway?

    What the good reverend doesn’t understand is that “design” in nature, particularly in complex organisms, is always a compromise, and always builds on what was already there, just as if it had, well . . . evolved.

  8. Design means to take account of the possibilities. To plan for change from things as they are to things as they would be. But for an omnipotent creator, what would the point of change, when things would be created from the first according to the will of the creator? What possibilities would there be to be taken account of?
    Design is what a limited agent has to do.
    Design is always a compromise, and an omnipotent creator never compromises. Planning is contrivance, the resort of the limited.
    Necessity is the mother of invention. And there is no necessity for the omnipotent.

  9. FWIW, evidence continues to mount that the earliest organisms were not photosynthesisers at all, but derived the energy, as some still do, from chemical reactions at places like deep sea vents

  10. For the IFFZ, a cute little tidbit tweezered out of the twisted brain of the DiscoTute’s redoubtable Klinghoffer:

    Two days back, Klingy squeezed out another of his inestimable stools for the ENV blog (In Praise of “Devout Catholics”), which was of little interest–apart, IMHO, for one little throw-away line therein, viz.:

    For a serious treatment of Catholic tradition as it pertains to evolution, I recommend our friend Father Michael Chaberek’s new book “Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis”.

    Fr. Chaberek is unknown to me, but a little googling turned up A Question & Answer Interview with Fr. Michael Chaberek published by the Evangelical Philosophical Society. And–given the way Klingy and the DiscoTooters bristle with rage when anyone points out that they are Creationists, I particularly enjoyed reading the following from their “friend” Chaberek:

    Q: Given debates among ‘creationists,’ ‘theistic evolutionists’ and ‘intelligent design’ advocates, what can each potentially learn from your book?

    A: In my book “Catholicism and Evolution” I offer a different typology: Young Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists and Atheistic Evolutionists. These four groups include all positions in the current debate regarding the origin of species. As you see, there aren’t intelligent design advocates, because one can find them among all “theistic groups” (although theoretically even atheists can adopt the basic claims of intelligent design theory)

    Tee hee!

  11. Douglas E says: “A really good designer would have made green people!”

    Too primitive. Most efficient would be creatures who don’t need a planet at all. We should be able to live and move around in space, absorbing energy directly from the nearest available star. What would creationists think if we eventually discovered that such creatures actually exist?

  12. That would be a truly Great Designer!! 🙂

  13. “Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.”
    Galileo
    Notes in a copy of Jean-Baptiste Morin’s “Famous and ancient problems of the earth’s motion or rest, yet to be solved” (published 1631), as quoted in The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167

  14. michaelfugate

    As you see, there aren’t intelligent design advocates, because one can find them among all “theistic groups” (although theoretically even atheists can adopt the basic claims of intelligent design theory)

    Of course, atheists and theists alike know that humans and other animals are intelligent designers. The problem is whether or not this tells us anything about the origin of life, the universe and everything – many theists and especially ID proponents believe that it does.

  15. Our Curmudgeon states the obvious:

    We should be able to live and move around in space, absorbing energy directly from the nearest available star.

    Wait. You mean…you earthlings can’t do that already?

    Jeepers!

  16. The complexity of photosynthesis is a scientific reason not to believe in evolution?! Though the cute rev with a smirky smile sounds authoritative, he’s woefully ignorant. Hugely successful in the living world, photosynthesis looks more like a process cobbled together from separate pieces than intelligently designed. Unless, of course, the designer tinkered. Sigh.

  17. He should study the actual chemistry of it, rubisco is a horribly inefficient/slow protein and the rate limiting factor of photosynthesis. The hallmark of a clumsy “only works well enough to get by” evolved system.