Creationist Wisdom #770: Common Sense

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Courier-Tribune of Asheboro, North Carolina. It’s titled Element missing in evolution — common sense, and the newspaper has 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 Larry. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Bob Morrison’s column stated “but we’ve only recently learned that birds are evolutionary descendants of dinosaurs.” This is an unproved theory of evolutionists.

We can’t find that column, but it doesn’t matter. Oh — note that Larry imagines theories are proven, rather than being confirmed, but still subject to dis-proof. Then he says:

He went on to say that dinosaurs adapted to environmental changes over 150 million years. Hmm. Dinosaurs had solid bones: birds have hollow ones “honey-combed” for lightweight/strength. So if this transition took 150 million years would that mean an “evolving” bird could only get five feet off the ground for the first 50 million years or so?

To begin with, the dinosaur ancestors of bird did have hollow bones. The Wikipedia article on Origin of birds says: “Fossil evidence also demonstrates that birds and dinosaurs shared features such as hollow, pneumatized bones, gastroliths in the digestive system, nest-building and brooding behaviors.” We won’t comment on the rest of Larry’s paragraph. After that he tells us:

Darwin’s unproved theories are based on “survival of the fittest.” How could a half dinosaur survive as the “fittest” in a dual land/air environment? I have the answer. This never occurred.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! It’s a Crocoduck argument. Larry continues:

After debating creation vs. evolution for years [Hee hee!], I have concluded there is a third element — common sense. Setting both God’s Word and evolutionary theory aside, please consider that if all life’s ancestor was an accidentally created one-cell organism:

Here are Larry’s “common sense” objections to evolution. They don’t require any response from us:

• How did an animal form turn into a plant (blood to sap)?

• How did virtually all animals develop both male and female forms simultaneously?

• As many male animals have rituals to attract females for mating, how were they attracted while they were “evolving”?

• How did a butterfly survive over millions of years while “evolving”? The life stages are egg, which becomes a caterpillar, which spins a chrysalis and later emerges as a butterfly with wings. It’s like the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did some mysterious force of nature tell the egg (if it came first) to turn into a worm, eat like crazy, spin a chrysalis and then you’ll become a butterfly and be able to lay eggs?

• From a one-cell organism, how did extremely complex things like sight, smell, hearing, touch, speech, thoughts, feelings, the brain and all the other marvelously complex systems of humans, animals and plants “just happen”?

Larry’s “common sense” approach is powerful indeed! As for his male and female argument, we encountered that before — see Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare.

Larry’s not done yet. Let’s read on:

Evolution, as in one animal turning into another, is utter nonsense spawned mostly since Darwin’s theories about 150 years ago, which most of mankind has swallowed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s the Dracula version of evolution. And now we come to the end — which we don’t understand:

God stated 10 times in Genesis 1:11-25 that all life was created after its kind. Do you think God didn’t know this evolution slop was coming, due to the wickedness of mankind?

That’s Larry’s common sense approach. It works for him. How about you, 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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #770: Common Sense

  1. Ross Cameron

    Still waiting to find out how the koala got to Australia from Ararat. I`ll only accept common sense.

  2. Ross,
    The koala bought a ticket on deus ex machina airlines? Hey, why not? I wasn’t there so could have happened.LOL.

  3. Nuts, I wrote [description of typo deleted]. Requesting help from the great Curmudgeon.

    [*Voice from above*] He’s busy, but I am with you always.

  4. Common sense is good only for common experience. Though even a philosopher who should have known better invokes it. I explicitly mentioned plants vs animals when writing about this a while back: Nonsense from Nagel, and the myth of “common sense” https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/nonsense-from-nagel-and-the-myth-of-common-sense/

    “Common sense tells us that we are standing still on solid ground, that animals and vegetables are different kinds, that space is Euclidean, that the heavens are unchanging, that an object will eventually come to rest if no force is acting on it, and that tables are solid. That the earth is moving, and that the continents themselves are moving across its surface, that a man shares half his genetic information with a mushroom, that matter distorts the space around it, that the universe is expanding, that a moving object will continue along its trajectory until something stops it, that matter is made up out of atoms and that almost all the mass of these atoms is crammed into a tiny nucleus less than one billionth of the total volume, all of these are violations of common sense. Nonetheless, they are fundamental facts of which any educated person should be aware”

    Including the Courier‘s correspondent

  5. Only that I disagree about common sense denying evolution.

    It is an ancient observation that that we are related, in some vague way, to other living things.
    For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 3:19
    Much of our thinking about species and genetics and thereby denial of evolution is a fairly recent invention, dating from the beginnings of modern science or later. I suggest that if one can find a person who has not been exposed to modern culture as ask them whether we are related to the rest of the world of life, they would find it obvious that we are. Myself, I find the inference from the “nested hierarchy” to “common descent with modification” obvious, something which I would be surprised to find an alternative for. Although I hope that I am open to hearing such a counter-intuitive explanation and reasons for it.

    BTW, the age of the universe, that is something else.

  6. There is a good common sense argument against evolution, and it was put forward by Cuvier, who was no slouch. Existing species are exquisitely adapted to their niches, so how could change be anything other than harmful?

    Of course niches change. Less obviously, evolution is only possible because of statistical drift which will at times lead away from local optima. How this happens is part of the subject matter of population genetics, which like statistics in general is quite a long way from common sense: Evolution is not progress https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/evolution-is-not-progress/

  7. There are 19th-century good arguments against evolution. Such as the argument that the changes in life have not been uniformly progressive. (Accepting the non-common sense idea that fossils are the remains of extinct forms.)

    But I suggest that an argument such as Cuvier’s is not a common sense argument, depending on such sophisticated modern concepts such as “species” and “niche”. And I think that it is related to his sophisticated “correlation of parts” and “conditions of existence”, reminding me of “irreducible complexity”?

  8. Dunning-Kroger at its finest!

  9. Larry has a good list of basic questions, which he describes as common sense objections to evolution.

    Larry should employ some common sense and google them, before writing his letter.

  10. Eric Lipps

    How did a butterfly survive over millions of years while “evolving”? The life stages are egg, which becomes a caterpillar, which spins a chrysalis and later emerges as a butterfly with wings. It’s like the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did some mysterious force of nature tell the egg (if it came first) to turn into a worm, eat like crazy, spin a chrysalis and then you’ll become a butterfly and be able to lay eggs?

    Nothing better illustrates the gulf between creationists and rational people, er, I mean other people, than the chicken-and-egg question.

    To creationists, the chicken came first (created on Day Five, according to YEC’ers). To Darwinians, the egg came first, since the first chicken hatched out of an egg laid by a bird which was not quite a chicken.

  11. I remember when I was a kid, one of my elders was teasing me with the riddle of “which came first, the chicken or the egg”, and I innocently answered that the chicken evolved later than the egg. I remember being confused when my elder became upset with that obvious answer.

    Anyway, I wonder what the Biblical answer is to whether the caterpillar was created on day six, or the butterfly was created on day five.

  12. Ross Cameron

    ‘Although I hope that I am open to hearing such a counter-intuitive explanation and reasons for it.’ No prob for a creo, Tom. God moves in mysterious ways. End of story.