Creationist Wisdom #818: Scientific Proof

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Medicine Hat News of Medicine Hat in Alberta, Canada. According to Wikipedia, the city name is from the eagle tail feather headdress worn by Blackfoot medicine men. The letter is titled Evolution remains an unproved idea, 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 Canon Ivor Ottrey, presumably of the St. Barnabas Anglican Church. We’ll give you a few excerpts from the rev’s letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

True science is not in conflict with the Bible. The Bible declares “In the beginning[“?] God spoke creation into being. An amazing claim but the God of the Bible is Almighty, all wise and present everywhere. The alternative is the idea of evolution that everything happened by chance, that life suddenly came to be and through billions of years from a simple cell evolved to where we are now all without God and without design.

The rev doesn’t close his quotes, so we had to guess where his scriptural quote ended. Then he says:

First of all there is no such thing as a simple cell: Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

[*Gasp!*] How have “recent discoveries” proved that? The rev tells us:

These cells have irreducible complexity which means if one part does not work the rest of it cannot.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He’s talking about the Discoveroid mantra of Irreducible complexity. Wikipedia says:

[Michael] Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mousetrap consists of five interacting pieces: the base, the catch, the spring, the hammer, and the hold-down bar. All of these must be in place for the mousetrap to work, as the removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap.

The rev continues:

Now regarding fossils: There has not been one case that can honestly show the development of one into another! On the other hand on Genesis Week [a creationist TV show], severalfossils [sic] which evolutionists claimed in one case was billions of years old, and a horseshoe crab, a dragonfly and a fish millions of years old and beside them were photos of all these creatures alive today revealing no evolution!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The rev is bamboozled by the existence of so-called living fossils. He thinks evolution demands that all organisms should simultaneously evolve, leaving none of their un-mutated relatives behind. In other words: Why are there still monkeys? Let’s read on:

Now repeatedly in Genesis Chapter 1 we read “All these created creatures and trees, etc., were to reproduce after their own kind. And that is always what human beingshave [sic] seen and known.

That time the rev not only failed to close his quote, but he also doesn’t use spaces between his words. And now we come to the end:

Scientific observation agrees with the Word of God. All scientific discoveries are finding the wonders that God designed and created. Evolution is not science but unproved idea whereas the Bible is truth.

Yes, “all scientific discoveries” are proving that the rev speaks The Truth. So why are you still a hell-bound Darwinist?

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #818: Scientific Proof

  1. “There has not been one case that can honestly show the development of one into another!”
    OK, this settles it. No matter what evilutionist athiest nazi commies like me show this Canadian preacher, it will always be dishonest.

    “Scientific observation agrees with the Word of God.”
    Exactly. And every single observation that doesn’t is not scientific.
    You can’t beat creacrap.

  2. When someone reads the buyBull and then using such instructions, develops some thing as good as the iPhone, we can talk about how good science agrees with the mythic BS!

  3. I have a suspicion that most of those pastors who write Creationist Wisdom to local newspapers, even the ones with some divinity degree, wouldn’t pass a simple freshman course in evolutionary biology.

  4. That preacher is so convincing, guess becoming a Jesusist is the only solution.

  5. “Human Beingshave” — a competitor of Burmashave? (Hate to think of its ingredients.)

  6. What`s that line about ‘better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and confirm’ ?

  7. Creationists are full

    Of silly shenanigans

    But rarely are they

    Ordained Anglicans.

    Human Beingshave

  8. Yay Megalonyx! I laughed out loud.

  9. @ skmarshall: thanks, but hat tip to Pope Retiredsciguy, who is always inspirational 🙂

  10. Why, thank you, Megalonyx! I try … but truthfully, I am usually the one who is inspired — by your writing, the Great Curmudgeon’s, and by the many thoughtful and intelligent commenters on this blog devoted to the defense and advancement of genuine science.

    It is unfortunate that such a defense is necessary, but there are those in the world who have agendas antithetical to science. May the ink dry within their pens, the graphite in their pencils turn to schist, and the silicon of their computers’ microchips revert to sand.

  11. The Canon blew a lot of smoke and shot a lot of balls.

    Evolution is chance! The cell is too complex to evolve! Fossils of insects, crabs and fish are said to be “billions” of years old! Irreducible complexity denies evolution! Some species didn’t evolve!

    It’s the old problem. Is he kidding himself, or is he trying to kid others? Some of the creationist noise factories manufacture ignorance on an industrial scale, but most of the foot soldiers are only distributors. It’s a bit like the drug racket in that aspect. I’ve no doubt that the Canon is a fairly low-level operative, peddling his own addiction to comforting lies. So much I surmise from the evidence: nothing he says is new or original. All of it can be identified as the product of one of the main lie machines – the DI, AiG, Creation Research, Hovind, you name it.

    I think he doesn’t know that what he wrote is comprehensively false. But not to know that implies that he has not merely conserved his ignorance, but carefully cultivated it. These are the gross misconceptions of a person who has never in his life cracked a genuine textbook on the subject. He doesn’t want to know, and has deliberately avoided knowing. So now he has made a fool of himself in public, and struck a blow against a Christian denomination that has for almost a century accepted evolution.

    I suppose hard-line atheists will rejoice. Even Anglicans, generally harmless as they are, can be malevolent morons, just like the evangelicals. Me, I regret it.

  12. “struck a blow against a Christian denomination”
    Just like islam and most muslims are not responsible for ISIS the anglican denomination and most anglicans are not responsible for Ottrey’s drivel. This “that has for almost a century accepted evolution” is good enough.

  13. “So why are you still a hell-bound Darwinist?”

    Hell-bound I may be, but Darwinist I am not, any more than I am a Daltonist in chemistry, a Hubbleist in cosmology, or a Huttonist in geology.

    I yield to no one in my admiration of Darwin, but we are defending today’s living science, not that of 1859.

  14. I’m serious. Why do our enemies keep on and on about Darwin? And why do we collude?

  15. If we trust several creatonists, Darwin wasn’t responsible for evolution. He stole the ideas. So if Darwin was the most dispicable charlatan, it makes no difference.
    As far as collusion, as long as those of us who accept evolutionary biology go along with the creationists on these:
    1. There is someting of substance to creatonism, intelligent design, a “theory of creation”, an “alternative”, it makes sense to talk about “evidence for creationism”.
    2.The Bible teaches anything about the falsity of evolution.
    3. Biological evolution has anything to do with the Big Bang, or (at least as far as today’s knowledge) the origin of life on Earth or elsewhere in the universe.
    4. The existence of God
    I realize that these issues are of interest to many of the denizens of this blog, but they are a successful red herring for creatioists, a way of distracting from the solid foundation of evolutonary biology.

  16. whereas the Bible is truth.

    Just to play devil advocate but why is the Bible the truth? Possible reasons:

    1. An authority figure told you so when you were young.
    2. An authority figure told you so when you were older.
    3. It wasn’t the truth until a moment of crisis and you found comfort in it because of reasons 1 & 2.

    My point being that none of the reasons have anything to do with the truth. It’s called faith and has nothing to do with truth.

  17. A) First of all, the Bible doesn’t say that evolution is false. It doesn’t have any interest in evolutionary questions, for example why the structure of taxonomy, what the relationship is among the bovids (the family {“kind” ?] of sheep, goats, bison, buffalos, cattle), etc. What the creationists are saying is “what I am saying has equal authority as the Bible, it’s just an oversight of the Bible that I am filling in.”
    B) Intelligent Design doesn’t attempt to answer the questions that evolutionary biology addresses. If you want to include ID in a biology class, the most that you can say, after presenting evolution, is to say, “but maybe there is someting wrong with that”. Of course, one can also say that about about geography. (“We are living in the state of Utah. At least, that is what some people say. I can’t prove that.”) At least in chemistry, there is an alternative: “Maybe water is an element, rather than being made up of things like oxygen and hydrogen, things which are not mentioned in the Bible.”