Creationist Wisdom #798: Read Darwin’s Book

Today’s letter-to-the-editor, titled Evolutionists should read Darwin’s book, appears in the Kelowna Capital News of Kelowna, British Columbia. 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 Chris. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I read Mr. Ferguson’s letter and three letters published in response to it. I felt compelled to answer some of their ideas. It is said that “Christians cannot claim an exclusive right to morality” and that atheists can live moral lives, but having studied both the scientific side and the atheist side, I can say that the non-religious side can claim no basis for morality.

Wowie — Chris has studied both sides of the issue! We can’t find the letter he’s talking about, but it doesn’t matter. Chris’ claim is the same thing we’ve seen from other creationists, such as ol’ Hambo — see Ken Ham: The Sole Source of Morality. Then he says:

Atheists can do good, but they can not define what good really is. Christianity has clearly listed what good is, and no atheist I have spoken to has been able to define good without referring to the same biblical principles I do.

Yeah — if you do good, dear reader, and Chris were to ask you why you did it, you’d be stumped for an answer. The best you could do would be to mumble: “Duh, I donno why I did it.” But Chris knows — he knows! — why good is good. After that he tells us:

Many of the people who claim to believe in evolution have never even read the book that it, and their own beliefs, are based on; they only believe what some authority told them is true.

He’s talking about you again, dear reader. You never read Darwin’s book, so you believe evolution on faith. That means you’re a fool! Chris continues:

If you claim to believe in evolution, please read Charles Darwin’s book and try to align his theory with what we know of modern genetics. I am sure that you will see that it doesn’t stand up to modern scientific fact.

We’ll bet you didn’t know that genetics disproves Darwin’s theory. Chris knows, because he’s studied both sides. Let’s read on:

I challenge anyone to honestly look at the claims of science and the claims of Christianity, like former God-haters Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace all did.

One of those names is familiar to us. Lee Strobel is sometimes praised at creationist websites. Wikipedia says that his book, The Case for a Creator (Amazon listing), “consists of interviews with intelligent design advocates and Christian apologists who argue for the existence of a creator.” However, interviews with believers, whether they believe in deities, UFO abductions, or an afterlife, isn’t evidence of anything — other than the existence of believers.

As for another of Chris’ “former God-haters,” according to Wikipedia, Josh McDowell is:

… a Christian apologist, evangelist, and writer. He is within the Evangelical tradition of Protestant Christianity, and is the author or co-author of some 115 books. His best-known book is Evidence That Demands a Verdict, which was ranked 13th in Christianity Today’s list of most influential evangelical books published after World War II.

Those are Chris’ authorities — and you have none. Now we come to the end:

And if world-changing scientist such as Einstein, Faraday, Kelvin, Newton and Francis S. Collins can trust in science and God, I am not really sure how you can say science has trumped religion.

So there you are, dear reader. Now don’t you feel like an idiot?

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

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #798: Read Darwin’s Book

  1. Where do these people get such bullpucky? Oh, I know, it is spewed from the pulpits in their churches. This by their pastors and invited guest apologists, both well known communities of scientists.

    And all of those scientists didn’t so much love God, but feared what that god’s slaves would do to them if they didn’t bow their heads. I have heard that burning at the stake is not at all pleasant. That was the penalty for translating the Bible out of Latin and into English, so they could read it, don’t you know. Apparently, Latin was the language of Jesus and therefore sacred.

  2. Actually, he is right in one thing, the discussion of heritablility in TOOTS is very mish mash and handwaving, and presented as *speculation*, since the mechanisms of genetics had not been worked out yet. But others fit them into Darwin’s framework very well.

  3. Ah Chris, it was reading the holy bible, from end to end, that convinced me the sky fairy stuff was nonsense. It wasn’t until much later that I read On the Origin of Species, after I had studied modern molecular genetics, and was impressed with how well Darwin explained his ideas, in spite of the fact that genetics hadn’t been developed in his time.

  4. Why do they keep beating the dead morality horse? Isolated tribes who’ve never even heard of Jesus are seldom shown to behave much worse than us. Many species like chimpanzees have been shown to have something resembling empathy. Heck, even crocodiles show parental care. No species consistently attacks their own kind.

    How about the other way around, Mr Chis; the writers of the OT recognised certain values many people share and decided to ratify them?

    (And interspersed it with some unnecessary bollocks about the sabbath or me being forbidden to cast a sideways glance at my neighbour’s wife etc.)

  5. “I am sure that you will see that it doesn’t stand up to modern scientific fact.”
    Well, that’s exactly why I haven’t read it and have read more modern stuff. I mean, I never have read anything by Galilei and Newton either; still I think I understand a few things about kinematics ….

  6. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    One wonders how Chris squares using Francis Collins as evidence that science and his version of god can be reconciled when he claims that genetics demonstrates evolution is wrong yet “head of the human genome project” Collins not only accepts evolution in general but human evolution specifically.

    Also, nobody treats “Darwin’s Book” as some kind of holy text nor is it true that if anything contained within it is incorrect then evolution must be wrong. His book was about the broad sketch and nothing revealed since then has refuted but rather confirmed it’s basic premise. Preaching to the choir here, I know.

    As far as this goes….

    Many of the people who claim to believe in evolution Christianity have never even read the book that it, and their own beliefs, are based on; they only believe what some authority told them is true..

    Fixed that for ya, Chris. Stop projecting there buddy.

  7. Chris should study genetics more carefully. Not only does modern population genetics comport with evolution, molecular genetics and particularly genomics provide better proof of common ancestry than morphology or fossils. As to morality, the genocidal OT god is hardly a model of morality and neither are the religious who persecute those of a different faith.

  8. Some of the old scientific works make for interesting reading. Galileo and Darwin I can read for pleasure. But I can’t say that about Copernicus or Newton.

  9. ‘Christianity has clearly listed what good is,’ Arguable, but how many Xians follow instructions? The lists of their behavior over nearly two millenia show a contempt for their infallible guide.

  10. I had to look up Francis Collins, since I’d never heard of him and didn’t know what he believed. Apparently “Chris” doesn’t either: Dr. Collins supports the notion of theistic evolution, which acknowledges that evolution is real but says it’s guided by God. I’m surprised the folks at the Discovery Institute and AIG aren’t burning Collins in effigy.

  11. “Atheists can do good, but they can not define what good really is.”
    Funny how there are so many contradictions in the bible that Chris seems to be overlooking. Maybe Chris hasn’t even read his bible.

  12. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik


    Not sure if what you read on Collins covered it but his “conversion story” is rather anti-climactic. While he might have had theistic tendencies previous to his experience, his self-described acceptance of Christianity occurred as a result of discovering a small waterfall that split into three streams while he hiking one day, the whole of which was frozen over.

    Struck with awe, an event of overwhelming emotion, what have you. Color me underwhelmed.

  13. Eric – rest assured that Collins has been burned by these folks, one way or another. AIG – Ham use the pejorative “compromised Christian” for folks like Collins, and the DI has hissy fits because Collins and BioLogos are completely dismissive of Intelligent Design.

  14. And CS Lewis wrote a whole book “The Abolition of Man” that covers non-Christian morality.

  15. So, I can do good but not define it. BFD.