Creationist Wisdom #792: The No-Brainer

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the West Central Tribune of Willmar, Minnesota — site of The Great Willmar, Minnesota Raid, a famous bank robbery by the Machine Gun Kelly gang on July 15, 1930. It’s titled Thinking outside the science box. The newspaper doesn’t have a comments feature. The thing is dated 26 July, but it just popped up today. Your Curmudgeon’s blog isn’t the only website suffering from Google indexing problems.

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 Phil. This isn’t his first appearance in our collection. The last time was Creationist Wisdom #681: Two Letters, when he said:

Evolution is religion masquerading as science. It takes a lot of “faith” to believe in that kind of “religion.” … I look forward to the day when American universities and big media will be released from the theocratic tyranny of Evolutionism’s religious “thought police” … .

Excerpts from Phil’s latest letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

One of the publications I subscribe to is the prestigious “Science” magazine published weekly by the American Association for Advancement of Science. A lot of smart people publish their works it.

Phil subscribes to Science? That’s unusual for someone whose letters find their way into our collection. He says:

However, when you go to the third page you will see a list of people, starting with the editor in chief, of over 100 people and their job titles. Next to that, there is a list of about 200 people on the board of reviewing editors. At the bottom, in very small light gray print, it says: “Science serves as a forum for discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science by publishing material on which a consensus has been reached as well as including the presentation of minority conflicting points of view.”

Does Phil have a problem with that? It seems so. He tells us:

The biggest thing in science today is genome biology. The rate of technical advancements is just mind-boggling. You would think with all that evidence resulting from trying to figure out how such a truly massive array of molecular machinery even works would be a no-brainer supporting intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, intelligent design is indeed a no-brainer. Phil continues:

Yet where are the “minority conflicting points of view” on intelligent design? I’ve not seen them. The magazine seems hell-bent on pushing macro-evolution in almost every issue, no matter how stupid it looks.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Great, huh? But wait — it gets better::

The same can be said for young age versus old age of the Earth. There is actually more evidence for a young Earth than for an Earth billions of years old, yet that evidence is never presented.

Gasp — this is an outrage! And now we come to the end:

The education establishment today is supposedly teaching kids about critical thinking. And they probably do; just as long as they don’t start thinking outside the confines of the politically correct science box.

Will the editors of Science take heed of Phil’s letter? What do you think, 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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #792: The No-Brainer

  1. Michael Fugate

    There used to be a “Phil” who commented on Jason Rosenhouse’s now gone EvolutionBlog, I wonder if it is the same guy? He seemed to be up on science, but could never accept that evolution occurs – even microevolution. It was a remarkable disconnect.

  2. Gasp, and if Phil had continued with his critical analysis, he might have added:
    “The same can be said for a flat Earth. There is actually more evidence for a flat Earth than for a round Earth, yet that evidence is never presented.”

  3. There is more in the Bible about the flat Earth than there is about man-kind.
    There is more in the Bible about the fixity of the Earth than there is about the fixity of kinds.
    There is more in the Bible about the dome over the Earth than about the barrier between kinds (or species, or classes, or families, or phyla).

  4. Mike McCants

    The date says July 26, not June 26.

    If you click on the author’s name, you can find his letter with the title “The folly of macro-evolution” from April 17, 2015.

    Of course he then opines about abiogenesis: “There still is no plausible explanation for how simple dead chemicals combined and formed the simple one-cell bacteria.” And then “Obviously, all living things were designed, …”

    I don’t think scientists would be impressed by a non-argument that begins with “obviously”.

  5. Mike McCants says: “July 26, not June 26.”

    Right. The eclipse made me do it.

  6. Adam Sedgwick, the last influential scientist to support the young Earth, abandoned the young Earth position in 1831.

  7. “I don’t like, or agree with, the articles in this magazine, but I continue to subscribe.” Major disconnect.

  8. “It takes a lot of “faith””
    Makes me wonder how Phil and co measure “amount of faith”.

  9. Phil, that’s because the evidence for a young earth (wait for it) doesn’t exist. If there were any, I’m sure you would have submitted it to Science long ago.

  10. I will say this about the Young Earth Hypothesis, unlike most of anti-evolutionism:
    1. It is a positive statement with content, not just “something is wrong, somehow, with evolution”.
    2. It corresponds with a literal reading of the Bible.