Creationist Wisdom #760: Mike Pence Defender

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The State Press of Tempe, Arizona. It’s titled VP Mike Pence, evolution and the facts in our schools. 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 Arden, and he’s described as “an aspiring pediatric pharmacist.” Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Vice President Mike Pence has taken a lot of flak this past week for following the “Billy Graham Rule” with his wife, and it isn’t the first time his Christian worldview has come under attack.

Arden’s letter links to Mike Pence’s ‘Billy Graham Rule’ has Internet yelling sexism, which informs us that Pence “never ate alone with a woman other than his wife, Karen. Pence also said he wouldn’t attend an event where alcohol would be served without her by his side.” That seems prudent for a politician or anyone else who may be the subject of journalistic scrutiny.

Back to Arden’s letter. He says:

While his living above reproach may not cause the majority to have a problem with Pence, his other comments have. Recently, a video resurfaced of Pence on the House floor saying he did not believe in evolution and wanted children exposed to its pitfalls. The media went into an uproar — calling him “stupid,” “backwards,” even a “threat.” So why does the classroom censure alternatives to evolution when there are compelling scientific reasons to discredit Darwinism?

Aha — the aspiring pediatric pharmacist finally gets around to it. He claims “there are compelling scientific reasons to discredit Darwinism.” Now the fun begins. He tells us:

Before I continue, let me point out that creationists believe in speciation and microevolution. These phenomena are seen in our modern world and they are undeniable — the speciation of dog breeds and the microevolution of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteria, for example. But these concepts are extremely different than macroevolution, evolution above the species level, evolution that contends that single-celled organisms became humans over a period of millions of years.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Arden is dancing the Micro-Macro Mambo — which we described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. But he appears not to know what the word “species” means, because he spoke of “the speciation of dog breeds.” It would seem that “an aspiring pediatric pharmacist” isn’t required to take any courses in biology.

Arden’s next paragraph babbles about DNA, and asserts that the first protein couldn’t have naturally come into existence — and for the appearance of authority, he links to an article at ol’ Hambo’s creationist website. We’ll skip that. Then he claims that the evolution of flight is impossible:

Additionally, the evolutionist must face the idea that flight developed three times independently — ornithological species, mammals such as bats and insects. However, the anatomical changes needed for a limb to become a wing prove contradictory in light of evolution. Firstly, solid bones for running would need to gradually become hollow bones for flight. In the intermediate stages, land animals would be more prone to fractures, have decreased “jump strength” for escaping prey and be conveyed no perceived advantage, predatorial or otherwise. How can evolution answer?

Wowie — wings couldn’t evolve. Powerful stuff, huh? Arden continues:

These are just two simple examples of why life should not be reduced to a contingent event, and there are more for those who solicit answers.

Arden has lots of reasons why life isn’t dependent on mere chance. Let’s read on:

Overall, the quest for human origins won’t be answered overnight, but a collegiate atmosphere should have an open invitation for discourse, for the sharing of varying perspectives and for the dismissal and acceptance of knowledge.

That sounds reasonable. We should always have a “collegiate atmosphere” so that those with an Oogity Boogity perspective “have an open invitation for discourse.” The letter ends on a generous, open-minded note:

Students are encouraged to create an informed decision about abortion, physician-assisted suicide, minimum wage, genetic engineering and the list goes on. So why not let students, who you call creative, self-directed, game changers, decide for themselves what they are to believe about this issue?

Yes, let the kiddies decide! Great letter, Arden!

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

23 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #760: Mike Pence Defender

  1. techreseller

    Curmie my boy. You supported a ticket with a mendacious leader coupled with someone who clearly states he does not believe in evolution. What a team? The willfully blind leading the blind.

  2. alternatives to evolution
    If there are alternatives to evolution, why doesn’t someone talk about an alternative, rather than spending time on why evolution is bad for you?

  3. Holding the Line in Florida

    “an aspiring pediatric pharmacist.” Hmmm, I am sure his medicine of choice is Flintstone’s for Kids! Basing this assumption on the link to AIG’s website. After all, the pills are based on what I am sure is his favorite documentary series! After all we know that Fred worked with Dinosaurs and Pre-flood world had dinosaurs in gladiatorial combat! Yabba Dabba Doo!

  4. Michael Fugate

    He forgot pterosaurs!

  5. techreseller says: “Curmie my boy. You supported a ticket with a mendacious leader coupled with someone who clearly states he does not believe in evolution.”

    I didn’t support Trump. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils — see Creationism or Socialism: Which is Dumber?

  6. C’mon. You haven’t told us why you think that Trump isn’t a socialist. Maybe there’s a third choice which is dumber than both creationism and socialism?

  7. As an avid reader but infrequent poster to SCs blog, I’m a bit dismayed at the personal insults sometimes posted when politics mentioned. Comments about political policy are one thing but personal insults don’t need to be used. I also find fault with the argument that not voting for Hilary or even voting for Trump is actually supporting Trump or Pence. I voted for Hilary, but I wholeheartedly do not support her, or her politics. I saw her only as someone who could surround herself with less idiotic staff.

  8. You call Obama and Clinton socialists…
    “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

  9. Michael Fugate

    Not all creationists accept speciation and selection.
    Insect wings did not develop from legs.
    Many dinosaurs were bipedal – with forelimbs and hindlimbs free to evolve independently.
    Dog breeds are not species.

  10. Hey, letter writer guy? Go up to the cassowary and tell it that it’s transitional wing structures don’t offer it any advantages. Go on. Go right on over and tell it that to its face. I’ll wait right here.

    Oh, this first aid kit? Yeah, I’m just holding onto that for a friend.

    Go talk to the cassowary, now.

  11. Ardent Arden boldly proclaims: “let me point out that creationists believe in speciation”
    except of course those many I have met on internet who simply deny it and refuse to reject that Canis Lupus Familiaris is an example of speciation happening right now.

  12. Let me put it this way then, PaulS. Someone who thinks the choice between Clinton and Trump is equivalent to the choice between socialism and creationism isn’t exactly defending the values of Enlightenment.
    Nonetheless SC simply excels at his main task on his blog: keeping us informed about the crazy alternative reality of creacrap and mocking it. I hold him very dear and even admire him for it. His crypto-religious worship of Adam Smith’ Invisible Hand and his false assertion that only this can claim the heritage of Enlightenment (that very same socialism he dislikes so much, including Marx and Engels, also results from it) can’t and won’t change a iota of this affection.

  13. I grew up in a creationist community where the 6 days of creation were real days and Jonah really was in the whale’s belly. And you’d better believe it or there’d be hell to pay. I read this blog for both entertainment and edification. Creationists are politically powerful and their threats to education are very real, more so with rampant denial of science on the political right. SC provides a valuable service. I see no reason to attack his personal politics.

  14. Michael Fugate

    I really have to wonder what Pence thinks will happen if he is alone with a woman as opposed to a man, a child, a dog? Also what will happen at any event where alcohol is served? I get the feeling that Pence-world is a very different world than I the one I inhabit.

  15. > flight developed three times independently
    Actually more than that. Flight is so easy to do evolutionarily that it has appeared independently at least 10 times off the top of my head – powered flight in birds, bats, pterosaurs, arthropods & gliding flight in eosuchians, flying frogs, flying snakes, flying squirrels, flying fish, and some feathered dinosaurs.

  16. Ross Cameron

    ‘Before I continue, let me point out that creationists believe in speciation and microevolution.’ Heretics! Apostates! That`s not in the bible. Neither is medicine, surgery, hospitals,vehicles, aircraft, bridges, skyscrapers. Where will this madness end? All works of the devil who wants us to leave the simple life in a village. What`s wrong with disease, suffering, watching your wife or child die in childbirth. God wants us to pay. (This is a paid creo advertisement)

  17. @RC
    Skyscrapers – the Tower of Babel!

    As to what is mentioned in the Bible, whoever wrote it, took care not to mention things which would not make sense to people living in the Ancient Near East. No kangaroos, no p_________________________________________________________________________o

  18. Sorry!

    [*Voice from above*] You shouldn’t drive and write blog comments at the same time.

  19. As for criticizing Mike Pence for following the “Graham rule,” seems to me people are wrong to second-guess any domestic arrangement that both partners are satisfied with. How consenting adults relate to each other in private is not a public issue. Just guessing here, but probably the same people decrying the Pences’ relationship would approve of other unconventional ones, such as same-sex marriage.

  20. Michael Fugate

    This has nothing to do with Pence’s private life. It has to do with his ability to do a job, but being able to meet with males (of any sexual orientation I might add) for a working dinner and not any females. It is unworkable in the 21st c. and makes him unfit for office.

  21. aspiring pediatric pharmacist
    DEF: selling drugs to children before “examining” them.
    You supported Trump .You may not have agreed with him but you supported him.

  22. Overall, the quest for human origins won’t be answered overnight, but a collegiate atmosphere should have an open invitation for discourse, for the sharing of varying perspectives and for the dismissal and acceptance of knowledge.

    What creationists routinely refuse to acknowledge is that the open debate called for by Arden has already taken place — in the nineteenth century, and creationists lost. They just wont take no for an answer from those uppity facts.

    Oh, and “dismissal of knowledge?”

  23. SC says “I didn’t support Trump. I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils — see Creationism or Socialism: Which is Dumber?”

    Socialism is dumber. You sure about that?

    1. Free enterprise is listed last in your blog title, after reason and science.

    2. You post way more entries about creationism than socialism.