Creationist Wisdom #788: A New Theory

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the National Catholic Register, which describes itself as “America’s most complete and faithful Catholic news source.” The title is De Novo Creation. It’s the first of three letters at that link. They have a comments section, but you have to register to see them.

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 Bruce. The Register‘s website says that copying their material is ”strictly prohibited.” We wouldn’t want to bring their wrath down upon us, so we shall comply. Instead of giving you excerpts from Bruce’s letter, we’ll merely describe what he says — enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, of course. Here we go!

He begins by boldly proposing a theory to support the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. We’re always interested in new theories, so let’s gather ’round and see what Bruce has to tell us.

His theory is that just as Jesus was supernaturally incarnated in his mother’s womb, so too were Adam and Eve supernaturally created in the Garden of Eden. Hey — that’s quite a theory!

Not only that, but the Garden of Eden was a supernatural place, as was Mary’s virginal womb. Bruce says that his theory explains the de novo creation of Adam and Eve outside the normal laws and operations of biology. In both cases (Adam & Eve and also Jesus), they were 100% created by God.

Wowie — Bruce’s theory explains so much! We regret that we can’t actually quote any of Bruce’s letter, but if you click over to the Register to read it for yourself, you’ll see that his theory explains a couple of other things too. We’re very impressed.

It won’t be long before we’ll be seeing demands that Bruce’s theory should be taught in school along with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory is totally inadequate to explain the things that Bruce’s theory does, so we can’t imagine that there will be any objections.

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

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #788: A New Theory

  1. Hey! Bruce word salads are just more BS on top of the original BS! SHOW PROOF!!

  2. I beg to differ.
    First describe an alternative to evolution. For example, where common descent with modification accounts for the position of Homo sapiens in the pattern of taxonomy, what does this “theory” offer?
    Only if there is a theory is it worth the effort to talk about evidence.

  3. siluriantrilobite


    Sent from my iPad

  4. Hmm, isn’t Bruce’s “new theory” cribbed from somewhere? I’m sure I’ve heard something like it someplace before.

  5. This guy has a new ‘hypothesis’ – it doesn’t get to be called a theory until we see some supporting evidence. I’m really anxious to see that evidence! Anybody want to bet on how long it will be before he comes up with any? Someone should clue these people in on what constitutes a ‘theory’.

  6. How is it that someone decides that “de novo” means “from dust or a rib”? It is just as well could mean “from Homo erectus”, or “from egg and sperm”, or “ex nihilo”.

  7. Dave Luckett

    I confess that my crude theology fails to distinguish what is new or necessary about this series of assertions. The tale goes that Adam and Eve were supernaturally created: Adam from clay, earth, or “the small dust of the ground”, (translations vary) and Eve from his rib, both by supernatural acts of God – miracles, if you like, for neither could occur “within the order of nature”.

    Yes. So what? We always knew that the story says as much.

    Likening the Garden of Eden to Mary’s womb and calling both supernatural places is in the first place a figure of speech and in the second an unnecessary augmentation of the scripture, a sort of theological fifth wheel.

  8. “… a sort of theological fifth wheel.”
    What is theology other than a fifth wheel? And in addition to that it is square so it does not even roll, but rather drags along slowing down the motion of the vehicle with four real wheels.

  9. Bruce uses the phrase “according to God’s word”. Oh dear, has the Hamitic Heresy begun to permeate the Catholic Church?

  10. Eric Lipps

    I fail to see how this”theory” is distinguishable from flat-out Biblical literalism.

  11. You have all failed to appreciate what Bruce has accomplished with his new theory. He has proposed a mechanism that explains two different events. A good name for his theory would would be God-did-it.

  12. A “mechanism”? Indeed? What rules does that mechanism follow? What input does it take? What kind of result might not be produced? Why would God bother with this mechanism rather than some other, or why resort to any mechanism when he can produce whatever he wants by creation? About the input to that mechanism: where did it come from, why did God make that input just to feed it to the mechanism, rather than making that input as he wanted it to end up as?

  13. When one delves into theology, in particular Catholic theology, you end up with what looks like a liar trying to cover his tracks with another lie. Eventually there is a cascading effect that ends up sounding laughably absurd.
    The theory is pretty much saying God did something this way (created Jesus from nothing in Mary’s womb), he could have created Adam and Eve the same way (created Adam and Eve out of nothing/almost nothing). I suppose this displays the utter uselessness of theology–God can do anything. So if this theology tries to make sense of God in what ancient fables suggest he did before the result is a useless diatribe about nothing. This is very similar to the classic futile question, “how many angels dance on the head of a pin?”

  14. That is not a theory. That is what we call, in the sciences, a wild-ass guess. A theory is a compilation of various hypothesis and the evidence that supports them, that is then used to make predictions regarding the phenomena involved. At best the gentleman could be offering an hypothesis. Now, what evidence can be offered to support this.

    I suggest that if he truly believed in de novo creation, we all could have been created five minutes ago, complete with all of our memories and histories, etc. This is not different from his god creating all of those stars and galaxies just a few thousand years ago with the light from them appearing to have traveled billions of miles before reaching our eyes and telescopes.

  15. And I have a different take on it.

    To me,doesn’t even rise to the status of a guess. It is the hope that there is something wrong with evolutionary biology so that we don’t have to think about being related to the rest of the world.

    It doesn’t say anything about “the way that God created”. De novo – newly – tells us even less than ex nihilo – from nothing.

  16. “I suggest that if he truly believed in de novo creation, we all could have been created five minutes ago, complete with all of our memories and histories, etc.” This is indeed Gosse’s ill-fated omphalos theory.

    Of course, maybe we were all created since I wrote those words. Indeed, extending that argument, I might not have been created while writing this.

    And hence, for all we know, the Universe may never be created