Creationist Wisdom #762: In the Beginning

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Cornwall Standard Freeholder of Cornwall, Ontario. It’s titled It is finished. The newspaper has no 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 Brian. His full name is the same name as that of a British author, but it’s probably not the same man. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I couldn’t let Ken MacLennan’s letter pass without challenge. His alternate facts would be worthy of Donald Trump himself.

Brian is talking about the last of several letters at this link: Letters to the editor, April 8, 2017 . It says:

The Catholic Church is to be congratulated for being proactive in accepting the big bang theory for the evolution of the universe – the church has its own science observatory – and the evolution of man primarily by the carbon atom created by the supernovae of massive stars. The church has also been honest in acknowledging that Genesis was not science, and that the Bible is the words of men 2,000 years ago.

[…]

If the church also accepts my recommendation to provide a new theology worshipping those great thinkers that created the technology and understanding of the modern world, the church would become more relevant to believers. The offerings would continue to flow.

Brian is outraged, and he explains why:

The great men of science, who he suggests we worship, used science only to describe the world we see around us. Their science has nothing to say about how anything got here. Newton described gravity. The fact he found gravity to be rationally intelligible strengthened his belief there was an intelligence causing it.

Aha! Newton thought gravity was evidence of intelligent design. But Newton isn’t Brian’s only authority: He tells us:

In the last 50 years or so, scientific knowledge has grown greatly. Rather than replacing God, science has shown there must be an intelligent force behind the world we see.

Yes — everything is evidence of intelligent design. Brian is just getting started: He gives us more evidence:

We now know there are dozens of physical constants in science that have been exquisitely fine-tuned to allow the universe and life to exist.

The universe is fine tuned! That means there’s a Fine Tuner! And here’s more:

Arno Penzas [sic], who made the brilliant discovery of the cosmic background microwave radiation, says: “astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.”

We found that Penzias quote at a couple of creationist websites. Brian continues:

Darwin thought the simplest form of life was blob of protoplasm with a simple nucleus. That was his starting point for evolution. We now know the simplest bacteria is a microminiaturized factory with thousands of molecular machines made up of 100 thousand million atoms — far more complex than any machine made by man. There is no natural theory as to how the first life started. Darwinian evolution has no starting point.

Darwin had no starting point, but Brian does! Let’s read on:

In the beginning, God. All things have been made through him. God sent his son to pay the sin-debt of fallen men and women. … Even Richard Dawkins, atheist-in-chief, agrees there is no ancient historian who doubts the existence of Jesus Christ. Everything that is was made by him.

Wowie — even Dawkins agrees with Brian. The letter ends with a thrilling climax:

At Easter we remember his victory over death. It is finished. Look to the cross. Look and live.

Well, dear reader, if that didn’t persuade you, then nothing will.

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 #762: In the Beginning

  1. Everything is evidence for intelligent design. And if everything were different, that would be just as good evidence.
    For example, the fine-tuning of physical parameters for life, that is evidence for design.
    On the other hand, the lack of the suitability of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for life, that lack of fine-tuning is also evidence for design.
    The way that the world works according to the laws of nature is evidence of design.
    And miracles contrary to the laws of nature are evidence of God.

    The lack of the coherence of the speed of life, and the half-lifes of several nuclei, with the age of the universe being less than millions of years – well, I don’t know why YECs aren’t pointing out that those are evidences (to use the creationists’ language) of design.

  2. “Their science has nothing to say about how anything got here.”
    No. In exactly the same way their science has nothing to say about anything how Brian got on Earth, so I can maintain that he was found in a cauliflower and brought to his mother by a stork.

  3. TomS says: “Everything is evidence for intelligent design. And if everything were different, that would be just as good evidence.”

    That’s why intelligent design predicts nothing, so it can never be tested. As a theory it’s totally worthless.

  4. Michael Fugate

    This is an interesting paper by a theist who tries to salvage the design hypothesis. He doesn’t help the ID crowd; he blows out most of their arguments, but, in the end, his lack of biological understanding dooms his “metascience” hypothesis.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Intelligent%20Design/INTELL3.htm

  5. I know next to nothing about how a manufacturing operation works. Does anyone where I can learn the basics? Design, I guess, would be part of marketing.

  6. @Michael Fugate
    The author recognizes that Intelligent Design needs an alternative to evolution. Just going negative is not enough.

  7. Brian no doubt believes all four canonical gospels. Not all at once, obviously, but each as convenient. Today, he favours John, which tells us that Jesus’ last words were “It is finished”. Maybe tomorrow he will praise the humility of Mark’s Jesus, whose last words were, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”. Or maybe he will prefer Luke, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Jim you forgot So long, suckers!

    TomS, he also just regurgitates creationist “hypotheses” as if they were useful – like “sudden appearances”. The intelligent designers/creators we know – in other words us – do not produce things out of thin air. Go to any museum of technology – like transportation – there is a progression of designs – some produced some not. They aren’t even describing intelligent design, but what they are describing doesn’t exist.

  9. I presume that any advocate of ID would point out that the designs that they are talking about are something quite different from the designs that humans (as well as birds and insects) engage in. If so, then ID is even more vacuous.

    Human design is not enough to account for something (other than a design). It takes more than good intention to produce something. It takes physical work on material according to the nature of the material to end up with a result.

    But what does call for a design is a problem, and what sort of problem – where would a problem come from – would the designers of the universe have to solve (after fine-tuning the parameters of nature, after privileging the Earth) – in designing life?

  10. Dave Luckett

    “there is no ancient historian who doubts the existence of Jesus Christ” Wrong.

    There are respectable scholars – eg George Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert Price – who argue, mainly from parallel cultural movements, that Jesus never lived at all, and is entirely a fictional construct. These, however, are a fringe opinion. Most academics point to the undeniable Aramaic constructions and the evidence of translation from the Aramaic in the Gospels and to the correctness of the descriptions of Jerusalem, the geography of Palestine, contemporary events, and Roman administration, to argue that these accounts are at least founded in a real person who spoke Aramaic. Others accept the words of respectable Roman historians like Josephus and Tacitus that there was such a person, he did have a following, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

    What divides scholars is not really the question of whether there was such a person – a Galilean nabi called something like Yeshu – but whether he was God. Even the convinced Christians among them – a minority – concede that there is no evidence for that, even among his quoted words.