Creationist Wisdom #834: Three Letters

Today we found three different letters-to-the-editor in three different newspapers. The first appears in the Tulsa World of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It’s titled Miracles, not science, can explain much, and 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 Gordon. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In trying to grasp how great God is, we try to pick a miracle that we can identify with. One of my favorites is gravity. There is no scientific explanation for gravity. Gravity is one mass being attracted to another mass (any mass), and does not fit any rules of science or chemistry.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then Gordon says:

Yet, gravity is the basis for a cohesive universe and for all forms of life. Each star is placed outside of the gravitational field of every other star to prevent the collapse of the universe, and the Earth is placed just the right distance from the sun to support human life. How great is that?

It’s great indeed! There’s just a little bit remaining in Gordon’s letter:

When we sing “How Great Is Our God” from our Baptist hymnal, we sing it in faith, without understanding any of the countless miracles that define how great God is.

For some reason, there’s an editor’s note at the end which says that Newton and Einstein explained gravity. That’s a bit of a spoiler, but it didn’t discourage some of the comments which agree with Gordon.

The next letter-to-the-editor appears in the Independent Tribune , a weekly newspaper in Concord, North Carolina. It’s titled The Bible is the word of God, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

The letter-writer is Rev. Mike Ruffin, described as “a former county manager, including in Cabarrus County, and a minister.” Excerpts from the rev’s letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

I feel sorry for the Christian who does not believe everything the Bible says. Sadly, they sit right next to us on the pew sometimes, but we often don’t recognize them. … There are also Christians who think the Bible is full of scientific errors. Unbelievers have convinced some Christians that the Bible is a book of religion, not a book of science. Obviously, the Bible was not written to teach us about science, but to teach us about God. A former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, warned us to be careful about such views. “The God of salvation and the God of creation are the same. Science doesn’t take God by surprise,” he reminded us.

After that he tells us:

He was right. The ancients believed Atlas held up the earth. But today we know the earth is suspended in space, a fact that the Word of God records in Job 26:7. “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.” Isn’t it interesting that God revealed facts about the universe long before man had the capacity to understand it?

We’ve discussed that passage before, in The Earth Does Not Move!, where we said:

It’s the same earth that the same book of Job says has a place and rests on pillars (Job 9:6 — “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.”), and that also has a foundation (Job 38:4 — “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth”).

The rev continues:

When Ptolemy charted the heavens, he counted 1026 stars in the sky, but the invention of the telescope proved there are an infinite number of stars. Jeremiah told us the same thing 3,000 years ago. “The host of heaven cannot be numbered,” he prophesied. (Jeremiah 33:22)

Amazing! One last excerpt:

Every now and then science may disagree with the Bible, but as Dr. Rogers so aptly put it, “Science just needs time to catch up.

That’s enough. Great letter, rev!

Okay, on to today’s third letter-to-the-editor, which appears in the Star Democrat of Easton, Maryland. It’s titled Evolution remains a theory, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

The letter-writer is Robert Croswell, Town Council President of Trappe, Maryland. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Evolution, as it pertains to the origin of the universe [*Groan*] and our species is a theory, not the “most-proved scientific fact of all time” as Jim Patchett would like us to believe.

He’s probably referring to this earlier letter: Humans evolved. Period. Let’s read on:

To become a proven scientific “fact” or law a theory must explain all observations and any conflicts with existing scientific laws. Creationism vs evolution has become a political issue pitting God believers against nonbelievers, and leftists against conservatives, with the loudest voices often demonstrating how little they understand about what they know.

Croswell’s is one of those loud voices. Another excerpt:

Ordinary evolution — the change of things over time — has been observed and is an accepted scientific principle, but there are certain things relating to origin of the universe and our species that the theory of evolution cannot explain. For starters, if humans did evolve from apes, and we still have plenty of apes, why do we not see a continuum of ape to human with examples of ape-like humans today? Why do we still have apes at all if they “evolved?” Why have we never found the “missing link” in ancient remains?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Why are there still monkeys? Where’s the missing link? We haven’t seen those for a long time. Here’s more:

The laws of physics do not allow that something can be made from absolute nothingness. So according to the theory of evolution, from whence came the material of the “Big Bang”? Evolution simply cannot explain the origin of the first matter from which it claims all evolved.

He’s right. Darwin failed to explain that. One more excerpt:

The creationists and Bible believers say that God created that first matter and our planet “period!” Of course the story of creation does not explain from whence came God. Evolution undoubtedly has changed what was “formed or created.” Perhaps one day science will discover God and it will all become clear.

Okay, dear reader. We’ve given you an ark-load of creationist wisdom to ponder. That should keep you entertained for a while.

Copyright © 2018. 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

11 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #834: Three Letters

  1. Oh Curmudgeon, three in one day? What a find. And they’re all so full of nonsense it’s hard to know where to start!

    Gordon apparently thinks gravity is a miracle because it “does not fit any rules of science or chemistry”. Most physicists I know think physics is a science. And he thinks “Each star is placed outside of the gravitational field of every other star to prevent the collapse of the universe”, apparently unaware that galaxies and galactic clusters display the influence of the same gravity that works here. And the thing that keeps the universe from collapsing is a combination of momentum from it’s origin event and, apparently, “dark” energy.

    In addition to being confused about the earth being “suspended” (by fishing line, perhaps), the good rev apparently seem to realize that a very large number is not the same as infinity.

    Then there’s Croswell, who makes it clear he knows nothing about Darwinian evolution and for some reason thinks it has something to do with the origin of the universe. I would lay odds he knows nothing about the substantial evidence that the universe originated as very hot dense matter that expanded and is still expanding today, and would be whether or not life evolved on one or more of the planets in it.

    Thank you, Curmudgeon, I think I’m ready of a glass of good Scotch after reading that collection!

  2. Jeez, where to begin?

    Well, how about this?

    Yet, gravity is the basis for a cohesive universe and for all forms of life. Each star is placed outside of the gravitational field of every other star to prevent the collapse of the universe, and the Earth is placed just the right distance from the sun to support human life. How great is that?

    (1) Each star is not outside the gravitational field of every other. Even excluding double- and multiple-star systems, basic gravitational theory insists that every object (including every star) is under the gravitational influence of every other, no matter how far apart they are. That influence may be very small, but it is not zero; even in rare situations where the gravitational influence of two celestial bodies cancel out, the rest of the universe still exerts an influence.

    (2) As so often happens with creationists, “Gordon” gets things exactly backward when he says that the Earth is”placed” at just the right distance from the sun to support human life. Rather than the Earth being where it is because God wants it there to make human life possible, human life is possible because tjhe Earth-sun distance is what it is. If it were different, humans wouldn’t exist–and the universe would go on. Creationists, whether they say so or not, believe that the universe was created with humanity specifically in mind from the beginning.

  3. Michael Fugate

    A veritable trifecta of silliness.
    The Rev needs to search “Qur’an and science”. He may be in the wrong religion.
    Look at this verse:
    “Do they not look at the birds, held poised in the midst of (the air and) the sky? Nothing holds them up but (the power of) Allah. Verily in this are signs for those who believe.”
    I think this answers both Gordon and the Rev. God is both gravity and anti-gravity!

  4. the Earth is placed just the right distance from the sun to support human life. How great is that?
    Yet the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is designed to make life impossible! How great is that?

  5. Michael Fugate

    Voltaire would be proud.

  6. Ross Cameron

    We can only cross our fingers and pray (heh,heh) that creos ‘evolve’ with their critical thinking.

  7. Three wonderful examples of combined ignorance and the Gish gallop. Refuting them requires more space than they do, because it would have to include some education in basic physics, cosmology and paleoanthropology, which the writers palpably lack. Ignoramuses who have managed to avoid such education thus far would of course respond tl;dr to any attempt.

    Gravity and the “suspension” of the Earth has been well covered in this thread by Eric Lipps and abeastwood. I, like SC, continue to be astonished by the idiotic:

    “if humans did evolve from apes, and we still have plenty of apes, why do we not see a continuum of ape to human with examples of ape-like humans today? Why do we still have apes at all if they “evolved?” Why have we never found the “missing link” in ancient remains?”

    The malevolent ignorance required for this is monumental. Of course the assumption that evolution implies that the current species of great apes all evolved to become human is moronic. But even more than that, this “missing link” nonsense is diagnostic. Not only is the writer thinking in terms of the medieval “great chain of being”, but he has managed to write to the newspaper in brassily confident (and condescending) terms on the subject of human descent while remaining ignorant of Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo naledi, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and the other species of human precursors that are known. They’re not “missing links” because there is no “chain”, but they are intermediates between the common ancestors of humans and of the OTHER great apes, humans ALSO being apes.

    I suppose idiots should be allowed to display their imbecility in public for all to see. If the newspapers publish their claptrap for that reason, I suppose they should be applauded for it. The trouble is that a whole tribe of imbeciles, ignorant and proud of it, nod along to this display of disinformation, thinking – if what they do can be described by that word – “Take that, evilootionists!” But if the retards who write such tosh are refuted in the same forum, the tl;dr problem, above, rears its ugly head again.

    I confess, I sometimes despair. I don’t believe that 45% or so of Americans are actually mentally deficient, but it is apparent that ignorance of the evidence is endemic and widespread. How to dispel it in the face of ingrained reluctance to consider it, is a problem to which I don’t have any solution.

  8. “every object (including every star) is under the gravitational influence of every other, no matter how far apart they are.”

    You need to be more careful with that type of statement in the future. There are currently visible *very* distant galaxies that are receding from our galaxy at a rate that is faster than the speed of light due to the overall expansion rate of the visible universe. Hence the stars in those galaxies are no longer gravitationally bound to our galaxy since that would exceed the speed of causality (the speed of light in a vacuum, more properly named). All of this is light years of distance above the heads (pun intended) of the creationists that you are responding to, but one must be careful to be precise in matters of science.

    Those *very* distant galaxies that I am referring to above will not be visible to Earth bound life in the very distant future because they will eventually move out of our light-cone. That is why billions of years into the future any viewer in our galaxy would erroneously conclude that our galaxy in the only galaxy that has ever existed in the entire visible universe since it would be the only one visible.

  9. And of course all three letters are wonderful examples of belligerent ignorance always wanting to eagerly display itself – one of the compensations apparently built into our universe.

  10. “Newton and Einstein explained gravity”
    Creacrappers aren’t even capable of formulating their own questions properly. Neither Newton nor Einstein explained why gravity is an attracting force, why two pointmasses don’t repel.

    “To become a proven scientific “fact” or law a theory must explain all observations and any conflicts with existing scientific laws. ”
    Clumsy formulation (again), but this is exactly what Evolution Theory does.

    “So according to the theory of evolution, from whence came the material of the “Big Bang”?”
    This president does not entirely keep up. A good and these days popular candidate is quantum field (fluctuation). That’s not exactly absolutely nothing.

  11. “leftists against conservatives”; indeed. Back in the days of William Jennings Bryan, creationism went along with progressive and proto-Keynesian politics. Now it has become part of an identity package along with xenophobia, tax cuts for the rich, and denial of medical care to the poor.

    How do we undo that linkage, so that these very different kinds of question can be discussed separately on their merits?