Creationist Wisdom #830: Evolution Is Crashing

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Guardian of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. It’s titled Missing links still missing, and the newspaper doesn’t seem to have 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 Ron. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Evolution science speaks of generalities and millions of years of evolution with no concrete dates or exact science. The missing links still remain missing.

He’s right! There are no specific dates for any of that evolution stuff. And those missing links are a real scandal. Then Ron says:

The Bible on the other hand has exact dates and can be traced back in history with real events showing the way.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Exact dates! After that he tells us:

Now there are ministers who do not believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis but believe the rest. How unbelievable is that? Who ever heard of building a house on sand? These ministers have very little faith.

Yes, it’s terrible! Ron continues:

Doug Perry in his letter to the editor December 9 cannot get his facts straight. “Is Genesis History” was produced by Thomos [sic] Purifoy Jr. an independent filmmaker. Doug makes broad false statements (none of the “creation” scientists work can pass peer review). Doug does not know how science actually works and the biggest brainwashing in modern history (evolution) is perpetuated by science.

We can’t find Doug’s letter, but Wikipedia has a write-up on Is Genesis History?, a creationist film directed by Thomas Purifoy, Jr. Let’s read on:

Doug you are not alone in your beliefs. Please read ” The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Evolution is the emperor’s new clothes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a new one. Another excerpt:

The evolution bandwagon is about to crash and mankind, who has rejected God for science, has no excuse.

Brace yourself for the crash, dear reader. And now we come to the end:

I suppose Doug doesn’t believe Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. We celebrate his birthday December 25 (the Saviour of the world.) Merry Christmas.

Hey, yeah — if we celebrate the birthday, then of course he existed. Great letter, Ron!

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

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #830: Evolution Is Crashing

  1. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Evolution science speaks of generalities and millions of years of evolution with no concrete dates or exact science. The missing links still remain missing.

    Except, of course, that they don’t. More and more of them keep being found.

    The Bible on the other hand has exact dates and can be traced back in history with real events showing the way.

    Wellll . . . not exactly. The farther back in tome you go, the harder it becomes to find “exact dates,” or any credible dates at all. The ages of the patriarchs are ridiculous; creationists never, ever provide any plausible explanation for how Methuselah, for example, could have lived to be 969 years old, or any physical evidence whatever that any human being ever lived the hundreds of years the Bible claims for its leading lights in Genesis.

  2. Ron’s a Biblical literalist creationist, a common enough version. He is catastrophically ignorant, of course, but far worse than that, he has been dysinformed, and is spreading dysinformation in his turn. It would be one thing not to know, but Ron is effectively insulated from knowledge through the simple expedient of replacing it with falsehood.

    Why does this work so well? Why has Ron never asked himself the simple and obvious question, “Why do the scientists, and most other people, accept the scientific account of the history of the Earth and the origin of the species?”

    Why does he accept the lie that there is no evidence, and why has it never occurred to him to ask what evidence there is? For it is obvious that he cannot possibly have ever investigated in anything remotely resembling good faith.

    It would be easy to put it down to fear, but there’s more here than simple terror of displeasing God. I’m sure that terror lurks in the back of Ron’s mind, but I think it likely that he isn’t particularly aware of it.

    No, I think we need more to account for so radical a disconnect from reality, such a cauterisation of curiosity. Ron not only does not know, and not only believes easily refuted lies instead, but he has also been sealed off from readily available knowledge. He has been shut down. Ignorance is explicable, but how Ron, reasonably literate, interested enough to write to the newspaper, with access to at least a public library system and a world of knowledge, can be so effectively insulated from it – that is more difficult to explain.

  3. Let’s see Ron. First, many, perhaps most, of the “exact dates” for bible stories are clearly made up. For example, one of the two conflicting stories of the birth of the baby Jesus claims a Roman taxation event that never happened. And in the the other version, Herod is alleged to be a bad guy, despite the fact he died several years before the baby Jesus was alleged to have been born. And I’m sure that, as a scholar of biblical history, you know that the alleged birthday of the baby Jesus, thought by many to be the greatest thing that ever happened, has a probability of a little less than 0.003 of being the 25th of December, a day that was picked by several hundred years after the supposed event to compete with celebrations of the winter solstice. I am not certain that Jesus was not an historical person, but I do know that many of the claims made in the bible for his existence are pure myth. Happy solstice, Ron.

  4. @Eric Lipps makes a point that I want to call attention to.
    The Bible does not specify exact dating from Creation to events of the secular calendar. It looks as if it is going to, with those numbers of “begats”, but there are gaps which means that different chronologists came up with different chronologies. Archbishop Usher’s answer is only one of several Bible-based, which differs from the traditional Hebrew calendar AM.

  5. Walker Mcmurrin

    Found Doug’s letter to the editor.

    Hope’s it’s useful.

  6. Dave Luckett,
    I have had many of the same questions you elucidate so effectively. My impression from creationists I have talked to is that consideration of non-biblical views is a slippery slope meant to separate them from their faith and their God.
    When I showed the incremental fossil evidence of horse evolution (at the museum of natural history in NY) to a creationist, the response was “I don’t think like that”. The person then disengaged from all further discussion and displays. This person told me later that the church gives repeated warnings that evidence of evolution will separate believers from Jesus and thus condemn them to Hell.
    Evidence is seen as an attack on their faith. I do not know of a way to combat that mentality.

  7. Walker Mcmurrin

    Hey abeastwood this Ron guy has posted this as well.

    This article is just disturbing.

    I wonder what your thoughts on it are.

  8. @Tom B
    There are non-Biblical beliefs that they accept.
    The Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s flood. No: the Bible says nothing about the Grand Canyon; the Bible says nothing about the Flood carving.
    There was burst of micro-evolution limited by the barrier separating kinds. No: totally non-Biblical.
    The heliocentric model of the Solar System. Creation ex nihilo. etc. etc.

  9. “Missing links still missing,”
    I love this title, because as soon as the fossil of a missing link is found we have two more missing links that are still missing.

  10. TomS
    It is clearly not a rational viewpoint as our SC so amusingly points out.
    The self perpetuating insulation against outside views/ideas is the part that I find so outlandish. Their beliefs result an amazingly different reality.

  11. A serious question; how do you reach those who have been taught that it is virtuous to accept certain beliefs without question, and that rational scrutiny of these core beliefs is sinful?

    (Incidentally, I don’t think this problem is entirely specific to creationism, or even to religion)

  12. For example, to have a population which is given to question what they are told presents a difficulty for advertising. If I were in charge of spending on advertising in media, I would prefer to spend the money on a medium which appeals to an uncritical audience.

  13. @mnb0
    I don’t like the phrase “missing link”.
    It seems to be a carryover from a pre-Darwin concept of linear chain of being.

  14. Ron and his creationist ilk are among the saved, destined for a better place in the promised afterlife. Evidence to the contrary threatens them to the core, provoking defensive reactions. Some folks just can’t accept that beliefs accepted as fact for millennia are indeed wrong, especially when that means they’re not going to heaven. Then too, some believers just feel a sense of superiority. The only missing link is our understanding of how their brains are wired.

  15. LOL funny example of certainty with zero proof. .

  16. But what is it that draws them to take some preacher as the voice of God?
    Preacher X says, for example, that the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah’s Flood. Obviously, the Bible has nothing about the Grand Canyon – you don’t have to read the Bible to realize that. But the Bible’s account of the Flood is only 4 chapters long, which shouldn’t take very long to read, so it’s easy to read that, and see that there is nothing about carving canyons.(And one can read a couple chapters more to see that there is nothing about micro-evoltion within kinds.)
    Wouldn’t that mean that there is something amiss about Preacher’s authority being based on the Bible? If the fate of one’s soul is dependent on what Preacher X says, shouldn’t one be careful? After all, there are plenty of other preachers who are saying other things. What leads one to choose Preacher X rather than Peacher Y?

  17. Tom S,
    “What leads one to choose Preacher X rather than Peacher Y?”

    Seems to me the choice is predominantly determined by one’s place of birth and family of origin. How else could you explain local preferences (snake handlers being mostly in and around Appalachia for example)? A gross generalization, but for a person born “in the hills” of Western North Carolina, the likelihood they will become a Buddhist is probably close to their chances of winning a Powerball jackpot.
    Accident of birth seems the only plausible explanation to me.

  18. @TomS: reversed logic. “Missing link” is a flawless marker that the person who uses it is going to be dishonest and hence that his/her argument is wrong without any further do. That’s why I love it.

  19. The snake-handlers have Biblical basis for their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on “Snake handling” cites Mark 16:17-18, Luke 10:19, Acts 28:1-5.

    I have heard of people who get upset if it is suggested that “if you had been born in Arabia, you would believe that the Quran was the word of God”.

  20. Creos brains remind me of diodes–the current only flows one way. They can talk ad nauseum about ‘missing links’, but ignore the fact that they have no idea what the original autographs of the bible say. Their ‘missing links’.