Creationist Wisdom #779: Evolution Is for Sheep

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (it’s a column, really) appears in The Pike County News Watchman, published in Waverly, Ohio (population 4,408). It’s titled Four Reasons Why people believe in Evolution, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s Zach Guiler of the Canal Church of Christ in Waverly. We’ll give you a few excerpts from rev’s column, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis.

We have proven time and again in our Wednesday night apologetics class that the Theory of Evolution is an illogical lie. Yet, the vast majority of the world still believes that every living thing in existence is the result of time and chance. Why would intelligent and logical beings choose to believe something as ridiculous as evolution, over the more logical and factual creationism? There are several reasons this might be the case.

The rev gives us his reasons why people “choose to believe something as ridiculous as evolution”:

First, for the past 50 years, evolution has been the only thing taught in schools. It is not taught as an unproven theory, but as scientific fact. As a result, many do not question the validity of the Evolutionary Theory and just assume that it is factual.

Ain’t it the truth? That’s the first reason. Then he says:

Second, it has been portrayed in popular culture and the media that the most intelligent people believe in evolution. Those who do not believe in evolution are labeled as stupid or ignorant. Men are prideful. We want people to think we are well educated and smart. So people claim to believe in evolution, not based on facts and evidence, but because it will make them appear to be in the same league as those who are educated and intelligent.

Yes, dear reader, like most evolutionists, you want to appear to be smart, when really you’re an idiot. That’s the second reason. After that the rev tells us:

Third, it is claimed that the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. Popular scientists like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson have broken into the mainstream and spew their evolutionary beliefs, claiming that “all true scientists believe in evolution”, making it seem that all experts believe in this theory as fact, and those with little to no scientific knowledge follow their words. Just because someone is loudest, doesn’t make them right. Even if the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution, that doesn’t make evolution any less of the lie that it is. You are a free-thinking human being, not a sheep following the masses.

Yeah, you gotta think for yourself — but you don’t. That’s the third reason. The rev continues:

Fourth, there are many who accept evolution because they have rejected God. They don’t want there to be a God, so they accept an illogical theory over the logical and factual truth. No one believes in evolution because of the evidence. Why? Because there is virtually no evidence to back the theory up! Even those who believe in evolution must admit this.

Admit it, dear reader. There’s no evidence for evolution. Let’s read on:

Consider the evidence. Creationism has evidence while evolution is void of any. Creationism is logical while evolution is improbable.

So true! The rev concludes with some valuable advice:

Don’t be a sheep. Don’t follow the masses as they lead you down the path of destruction. Look at the proof, follow where it leads, and come to your own conclusion. When one does that, the only conclusion that exists is the fact that God is, and He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

At the end of the rev’s column, he says that this is his source for the foregoing: Why Do People Believe in Evolution?, at the website of something called Apologetics Press.

You may have noticed that we haven’t attempted to give you any rebuttal to anything the rev says. That’s because we’re too overwhelmed by the logic of his words. No doubt, you feel the same way.

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

20 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #779: Evolution Is for Sheep

  1. Michael Fugate

    The author of the Apologetics Press article is in the American Loons database.
    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/11/1203-bert-thompson.html
    He has 8 reasons in his article
    5 evil in the world
    6 evil in the church
    7 evil in your heart
    and

    Reason #8

    Lastly, we may state that some people accept evolution because they are convinced that it is the correct answer to the question of origins. They have examined the evidence and, on the basis of their examination, have concluded that evolution is the only plausible explanation for the Universe and all that it contains. These people generally are both sincere and open-minded. They are not attempting to rid themselves of the idea of God. They do not feel the need to be “intellectually correct.” They are not reacting to unkind treatment at the hand of religionists. They are not searching for a way to justify worldly behavior. They simply believe the evidence favors evolution, and thus have accepted it as the correct view of origins. What, exactly, is that evidence? Does it substantiate belief in evolution? And what is the creationist’s response to it? I invite your attention to future articles as we investigate these, and related, matters.

  2. Well well well, Thompson PhD score 1 out of 10 and that’s infinitely more than the vast majority of IDiots and other creacrappers!

    “Lastly, we may state that some people accept evolution because they are convinced that it is the correct answer to the question of origins.”
    Yup. Because it explains the available empirical data so nicely.

  3. A shepard of a flock telling his sheeple not to be sheeple as sheeple believe in evilution!

  4. jimroberts

    @Michael Fugate: Is this the article you are citing?
    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=273

  5. Christine Janis

    @jimroberts. Thanks for this, now I know where a creationist I was debating earlier this year came up with the name of DMS Watson.

  6. Michael Fugate

    Yes. It is the one SC linked in his post.

  7. Well, I liked Zach’s picture, smiling, happy, beard, sunglasses, hat.
    Bill Nye and De Grasse have been “spewing” evilution ! bah

  8. Ceteris Paribus

    I’m still skeptical about creationism. God (if your are listening) – Please send me the proof on your awesome twitter texter!

  9. Much verifiable evidence for evolution, not a shred for any of the thousands of gods of history including the christian one. Let’s hope Zach never has to weigh evidence as a juror.

  10. Mark Germano

    “Don’t be a sheep.”

    Unsurprisingly, the good reverend doesn’t know his Bible. Matthew tells us that when the Son of God returns, he will separate the sheep from the goats, and the sheep will inherit the Kingdom.

    So, I got that going for me. Which is nice.

  11. There isn’t anything to debunk in this article anyway. It’s basically saying “I know you ate but what am I?” Didn’t Creationists used to be more entertaining than this?

  12. Ross Cameron

    ‘Second, it has been portrayed in popular culture and the media that the most intelligent people believe in evolution. Those who do not believe in evolution are labeled as stupid or ignorant’.
    I`ll go along with that.

  13. Ceteris Paribus

    I do not believe in evolution. But I do believe that when I order lunch today, I will ask the waiter for a ham sandwich and fries.
    A belief is something you may dearly hope for. But something which you come to understand by means of reason and testing, is called knowledge.
    That is what separates religion from science.

  14. The cut-and-paste misrepresentation of what DMS Watson said in 1929 is a multigenerational zombie argument, which I’ve blogged about: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/creationism-and-evolution-an-open-letter-to-a-misleadingly-quote-mining-minister/

    Watson first wrote:

    “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of Taxonomy, of Palaeontology, and of Geographical Distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible. But whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.” And only later, recapitulating his argument, wrote that

    ““the Theory of Evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”

    Special creation is incredible because of “all of the facts of Taxonomy, of Palaeontology, and of Geographical Distribution”. So much for absence of evidence.

    There have been, I’m sad to say, some biologists who excluded creationism on a priori grounds, offering a flank to our enemies. But Watson was not one of them.

    As for Apologetics Press, they were responsible for “Truth be told; exposing the myth of evolution”, handed out by the school chaplain (we have Church-State entanglement, not separation) to schoolkids in Glasgow a while back (there was a scandal, the head teachers were suspended, and the Counciul tightened its rules for chaplains’ conduct. A blog post (long!) detaiing its errors is at https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/reviewed-young-earth-creationist-books-handed-out-in-scottish-primary-school/

  15. I think one could get a ‘Curmudgeon Creative Challenge’ out of inverting this one and proposing

    Four Reasons Why People Believe in Creationism

    And no, I don’t mean just some glib dismissal (e.g. 1. Because they’re pig ignorant), but a genuine attempt to understand the persistence of such belief in despite of such overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

    And I’d put in first place: [1] Inability to Set Aside Teleological Thinking

    Followed by: [2] Craving for a Higher Authority Capable of Making Other Folks Conform to My Moral Standards

    You get the idea…

  16. On believing in evolution. Ordinarily there is no problem in believing in something that one has solid reasons, such as believing that 1+1=2. Unfortunately, creationists like to stress that evolution is only a belief, as if it were a religion. Experience has taught many to avoid saying that we believe in evolution, and just say that we accept the reality of evolution.

    On the credible alternatives to evolution. There is no known alternative to evolution as an explanation to the variety of life. Creation does not attempt to offer an explanation for the variety of life. One can believe in creation, but that belief does not have anything to do with “why this rather than something else” (why is the Earth in a nearly elliptical orbit of the Sun, when literally infinite possibilities are available to gods, intelligent designers, or the supernatural, and why humans have their place closest to chimps and other apes in taxonomy). One need not restrict that to “credible” alternatives.

  17. Today is the summer solstice, an event that occurs because the earth rotates
    on a tilted axis relative to the sun. I’m wondering what reason this guy has for that? Did the designer sneeze?

  18. Ken Phelps

    Apparently the comments section of the paper is not for even mildly critical comments. Mine disappeared after a few hours. Anyone else try?

  19. The Intelligent Designers are somehow able to design and then make, according to that design, living things, despite the laws of nature (like the supposed conservation of information). We know that, supposedly, because of the way that living things work in the natural world.
    Why were they designed to work in the natural world, when the IDers could make things contrary to the laws of nature?
    Indeed, why were there designs of natural laws, when the IDers worked against those laws when they wanted to?
    Why did they design natural laws when those laws had to be violated in order to achieve the purposes of the IDers?

  20. @Mega: “I ain’t no kin of no monkey” – to say it friendly: creationists are addicted to the nice feeling that they are special in the eyes of a higher power. A few weeks ago I read it on a Dutch creationist blog: (I paraphrase) “common ancestry of Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes is an insult to all Christians”. That was a slur towards christian Evolutionary Biologists.