Creationist Wisdom #746: Science Is a Fairy Tale

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Belleville News-Democrat of Belleville, Illinois. It’s titled And you thought we believed in a fairy tale . The newspaper has a comments section.

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 Leonard. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Leonard begins with a scripture quote:

Psalm 14:1 – The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Leonard ain’t no fool, and his letter proves it. He says:

When you look up into the sky at the clouds, you may say, “Look at that cloud. Doesn’t it look kinda like a fish?” Or maybe it looks like a person’s head. This can be easily written off as something that happened by chance.

Or maybe you’re looking at the side of a mountain and say, “Doesn’t that look like a man’s nose? And below that, his chin?” This too can easily be said to be something that happened just by chance over time, through wind/rain/erosion.

Okay, but so what? Then he gives us a different example:

But when you’re in South Dakota, looking at Mount Rushmore, you instinctively know this was created by intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a favorite example of the Discoveroids — see Mt. Rushmore Is Designed, Therefore … Leonard doesn’t stop with that. He gives us yet another example of design:

Or when you see a grandfather clock or a car engine. And you know that no matter how many years you give it, there’s no way it could have created itself, just by chance, over time. Not in a million (or trillion) years.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Leonard is using his design intuition. After that he tells us:

The human eye has 70 million cones/rods/nerves/blood vessels. How many parts to an engine or clock? A few hundred, maybe?

Wowie — the eye has so many more parts than a clock! It must be designed too. Now Leonard comes to the point:

Yet atheists like Jim Walters [probably the writer of an earlier letter-to-the-editor] say we humans and the many other very complex creations just happened by chance over time.

We’re complex, so we must be designed. It’s undeniable! Leonard thinks that the earlier letter-writer is an idiot! He declares:

Jim, you’re that fool God speaks of, the one standing in the crowd at Mount Rushmore, saying, “Wow! Can you all believe that just by chance, over time, through years of erosion, those look like some of our past presidents?!”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Now we come to the end:

And here you though we Christians believed a in fairy tale.

Leonard knows that evolution is a fairy tale — and now you do too, dear reader.

Copyright © 2017. 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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #746: Science Is a Fairy Tale

  1. Michael Fugate

    Jesus on a piece of toast!

  2. Once again, we are told about the differences between natural things and designed things, as if that were a good reason to think that natural things are designed.

  3. His list of things that aren’t designed is one of the longest I’ve seen a design proponent provide:

    1. Clouds.

  4. No TomS. Natural things are designed, ‘designed’ things are Humble Emulations of the Creator’s Undeniably Munificent Style (HECUMS). Checkmate, atheist!

  5. Leonard:
    “…looking at Mount Rushmore, you instinctively know this was created by intelligent design.”

    No, Leonard. We don’t need to rely on instinct. We know for a fact Mt. Rushmore was sculpted by Gutzon Borglum. And comparing a grandfather clock or car engine to the human eye in saying these things could not have formed on their own is a false comparison — the clock and the engine are not living things! Of course they could not happen on their own!

    But eyes are part of living organisms — they could have (and did!) develop and get better and better “on their own” over time. The better the eye, the better the chance of surviving; the better the chance of surviving, the greater the likelihood of having offspring; the more offspring, the more “new and improved” eyes are going to be in circulation. It’s elementary, my dear Leonard. I’m truly sorry that you are just to dense (or bullheaded) to grasp the concept.

  6. @retiredsciguy
    We know that the sculptures were made by people by cutting stone. we know that it took more than design. I took work. We know that all the design that anyone is capable of will not produce something violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or any other law of nature. If there is a Law of Conservation of Complexity, it also applies to any of our designs.
    If we are told that the design involved in producing the sculptures is the same kind of design involving the production of living things, then we are being told that the sculptures might have just grown there, like the plants and the animals.
    As far as the complexity of eyes needing a better explanation than “they just happened to be that way”. There are things even more complex: the pattern of comparative anatomy, the pattern of biogeography, the pattern of paleontology. We seek a better explanation than “they just happened to be designed that way”. Just as we are not satisfied with “those sculptures just happened to look like US presidents”, we are not satisfied with “the eyes of other vertebrates just happen to look like human eyes”. Why does the world of life look like it came about by descent with modification? My intuition tells me that “some unknown agency, using powers beyond by understanding, did something or other, at some time, somewhere, for inscrutable reasons, so that the world turned out that way” is no better than “it’s a matter of chance”.

  7. I agree with Rsg: “a false comparison”.
    Leonard’s instinct tells him Mount Rushmore and clocks are designed by humans, who consist of material flesh and blood, use material means and follow material procedures. Then his instinct tells him that the eye is designed by an immaterial god, who is incapable of using material means and procedures by definition.

  8. I’m pretty certain many primitive tribes believe(d) that curiously shaped rocks, clouds or trees are a signal of the gods. So no, they can not be ‘easily written off’ as incidental.

  9. Of course, there is recent historical record of the building of Mt. Rushmore (the monument, not the mountain), while for Genesis there is only, well, Genesis. The difference should be obvious, but clearly it isn’t so for creationists, for whom the Bible is history because it’s the Word of God (and never mind that there’s no proof of that, either).

  10. @Eric Lipps
    Except that Genesis does not say much about the design of animals and plants, other than that they appeared from the waters and the land. It doesn’t say anything about any change, or lack of change, after that. (Such as there being changes limited within “kind”.) And it doesn’t say anything at all about the majority of life – the microbes.
    BTW, if we accept the reasoning about Mt. Rushmore, we deduce that the plants and animals growing on Mt. Rushmore are similar in design to the sculptures. Which means that the sculptures might have appeared by having grown there. Such is the power of the design argument.