Creationist Wisdom #774: Evolution & Creation

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website for three newspapers in Kawartha Lakes in Central Ontario, Canada. It’s titled Reader says it’s no accident Earth is the only habitable planet, 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. He has the same name as a theology professor in Toronto, but we don’t think it’s the same man. The letter-writer’s first name is Peter. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In this letter, I would like to take the opportunity to express my views on the evolution vs. creation argument. The theory of evolution, first postulated by Charles Darwin in the 1800s, states that man began as an ape and, over millions of years, apes became man.

That’s a little simplified, but let’s continue: Peter says:

Creation is the belief that man was created by a supreme being, this being, of course, being God, and that he also created the Earth, the heavens, and every living creature on the face of the Earth, as stated in the Bible in Genesis 1.

Okay. Those are the two theories: evolution vs. the supreme being, that being, of course, being God. But which one is correct? Peter knows, and he tells us:

Look at the beauty of the earth in comparison to the other planets in the Solar System. You’re going to tell me that was all an accident?

Good point! A wee bit subjective, but that’s okay. Peter continues:

Look at the complexity of the human body, particularly the brain. We are the only species on the face of the Earth who has the power of speech.

Well, other species communicate, but they don’t speak. Another good point! Let’s read on:

Our species is also set apart from all the other species in that we are the only species who has the ability to walk upright.

Uh … kangaroos walk upright. Penguins too. Let’s not even mention apes. But we do it better! Here’s another excerpt:

You set foot on any other planet in the Solar System and you’re a dead duck within minutes. Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life.

If we limit the possibilities to humans and the solar system, Peter’s right! We can’t stroll around on the other planets. That’s powerful evidence against Darwin and in favor of Genesis — isn’t it? And now we come to the end:

I urge readers to think about some of these points I’ve made, especially those who are skeptical about God and creation, as I have found, much to my chagrin, that there are a lot of people I’ve met who are.

Think about it, dear reader. Peter has made a persuasive case — but is it for evolution or creation? We’ll let you decide.

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

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #774: Evolution & Creation

  1. jimroberts

    “we are the only species who has the ability to walk upright.”
    Has he never seen a bird?

  2. He is full of BS! Another xtian & reading between the lines….I’m special, Gawd loves me, I aint from no monkey, and I’m so scared of the end, there is a gawd!

  3. What’s more, kangaroos are better at boxing. I urge Peter to think about this point.

  4. Derek Freyberg

    Creation is the belief that man was created by a supreme being, this being, of course, being God, and that he also created the Earth, the heavens, and every living creature on the face of the Earth, as stated in the Bible in Genesis 1.

    I hate to tell you, Peter, but that last clause doesn’t follow from what came before. Virtually every religion has a creation myth, but only three pay any attention to Genesis 1.

  5. I don’t understand the reasoning. Aside from the exceptions (like parrots which speak).
    There are plenty of species which have unique characteristics. The unique vision of the mantis shrimp, for example. Anyway, what does it mean that Homo sapiens has a unique characteristic? “Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.”
    There are people who do seem to recognize that it is a good idea to be able to defend a point of view, but don’t quite understand what what goes into a reason.
    One of my memories is of being told: “Rice is good for you. Japanese eat rice, and you’ve never seen a fat Japanese.” This letter writer seems to be working with the same pattern of reasoning. (There are fat Japanese sumo wrestlers who eat rice, of course. But even if that weren’t true, so what?)

  6. Ross Cameron

    I`ve always had a suspicion that creos branched off from the main line a while back. That`s why fundies tend to call themselves hetero sap. instead of homo sap. 🙂

  7. Peter, if humans were specially created, why did your god make them so ape-like, right down to the DNA level? Surely he/she/it could have made a unique creature that left no doubt that god made it.

  8. ]'[@Scientist:
    The standard answer is that one should expect that the same designer would use similar designs.
    But this ignores the fact that humans have their place in the nested hierarchy of taxonomy (the tree of life), where the human body is most similar to chimps and other apes, among all the possibilities.
    Another standard answer is that we do not know the ways of the Lord.
    But this tells us that we are not to expect to find an answer from the unknown ways of the Lord. Design is not an alternative to evolution.

  9. “The theory of evolution, . . . states that man began as an ape and, over millions of years, apes became man.”
    One of my pet peeves – the theory of evolution states no such thing. However, it provides a means whereby humans evolved from earlier apes. If a person intends to criticize the TOE, starting off by finding out just what it is might be a good approach. I suspect that those who do, discover that it all makes sense and become ex-creationists.

  10. apes became man
    From the first publication of “Origin of Species”, evolution was attacked because of the relation of humans to the rest of life. Even there was little explicit in Darwin’s about that relation. It has long been observed that there was a close relationship between humans and the other primates, that being exceptionally disturbing, perhaps because it is so obvious. For many people, “evolution” means “apes became man”.
    Oddly so the objection, for “design” thus means that there is a (divine) purpose to that relationship. While the evolutionary concept is that the relationship is merely one of the working of nature.

  11. Eric Lipps

    Look at the complexity of the human body, particularly the brain. We are the only species on the face of the Earth who has the power of speech.

    Apparently Peter has never heard of parrots.

  12. Parrots are creatures of Satan. Obviously.

  13. Dave Luckett

    The reasoning is of course cracked. Humans are unique, Earth is unique, therefore God. It doesn’t follow. Obviously.

    But its the emphasis that gets me. The only point he wants to make is the descent of human beings. This is “My grandpa weren’t no ape!” in slightly more literate words. It’s a purely visceral rejection.

    But it’s no use saying that. The visceral is real. How to counter it?