Creationist Wisdom #837: The Accountant

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Pocono Record of Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. The letter is titled Every design has a designer, 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. He’s a CPA, but being an accountant doesn’t qualify for full name treatment. His first name is Dewain. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

A recent writer used an argument similar to the well-known teleological viewpoint espoused by those holding to a creationist/intelligent design point of view with regard to the origin of the universe. The teleological viewpoint can be summarized as follows: Every design has a designer, the universe has a highly complex design, and therefore, the universe must have a designer. This is a very logical, easy-to-understand argument, and can easily be demonstrated and observed in everyday life.

Verily, it’s a brilliant argument. Dewain likes it and he says:

Even a cursory examination of our world shows design in is structure. However, so-called “philosophers” such as David Hume have attempted to discredit the teleological viewpoint, but Hume’s criticisms were written before the discovery of DNA.

Wikipedia’s article on the Watchmaker analogy describes Hume’s rebuttal; but the accountant isn’t impressed. He tells us:

The incredible complexity of the smallest human cell and the information contained in DNA should have been enough to silence those holding to any viewpoint other than the intelligent design/creationist, but such is unfortunately not the case.

Egad — Dewain thinks intelligent design is the same as creationism! He continues:

Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins continue to write delusional essays such as “The Blind Watchmaker,” in which he admits to design in the universe, but denies there is a designer.

The Blind Watchmaker is a book, not an essay, but that’s not important. Dewain is right — evolutionists are fools! Let’s read on:

The question for any fair-minded individual who seeks the unbiased truth is therefore, “How do we identify the designer?” Space does not permit detailed argument, but the Bible declares in no uncertain terms that the God of the Bible is the designer and creator.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] That’s the answer! But Dewain doesn’t jump to conclusions. He says:

No, it cannot be scientifically proven that God is the creator. God himself does not attempt to prove his existence. He simply states that he is.

That’s good enough, isn’t it? But wait — here comes the end of Dewain’s letter:

The Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, claims to be the word of God, and prophecies contained in the Bible have proven to be accurate. No other holy book can claim the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy as shown down through history.

Wowie — that removes all doubt! So there you are, dear reader.

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 #837: The Accountant

  1. Dewain may have read the bible, but he certainly hasn’t read any appropriate history, for the bible is wildly inaccurate on most, if not all, of it’s “historical” claims. And that is without including any of its dubious mythological claims.

  2. The Bible does not have anything to say about evolution. It does not deny evolution. It does not limit the scope of evolution to kinds, “microevolution”. It does not describe the relationship between different kinds of life.
    Nor have any of the statements of Christian faith until recent time shown
    any interest in biology, in particular, evolution

  3. “The Bible claims”. What a terrific supporting statement.

  4. Dave Luckett

    Sigh. No examination of “our world” shows design in its structure. Design is a faulty conjecture based solely on intuition.

    The teleological argument is simple, clear, obvious – and wrong.

    David Hume was an actual bona fide seriously influential philosopher, not so-called, and not in scare quotes.

    Complexity arises from natural causes, and is not an argument for design.

    Dawkins conceded the appearance of design, but spent most of “The Blind Watchmaker” utterly refuting it.

    God does not state that He is. Human beings make that statement, without evidence, from faith.

    The Bible has been shown to be often historically inaccurate, even when its writers were reporting events in their own time. The further from their own time, the greater the admixture of the supernatural. This is absolutely diagnostic of myth and legend.

    Prophecies in the various texts are sometimes of commonplaces, sometimes unfulfilled, sometimes deliberately acted out to meet them, and sometimes flatly contradicted.

    I cannot find a single assertion in this letter that is actually correct. This is not uncommon, with creationists.

  5. Michael Fugate

    “highly complex” and “incredible complexity” – sound important, but what does each mean? I would bet Dewain can’t tell us what methods and scales he used to back his claim. He didn’t define “design” for that matter – is it just a pattern? This is why Hume conclude the argument was rubbish.

  6. Re “the universe has a highly complex design” Hello? Could you point out that design? Describe it. It seems like most stuff is scattered around at random.

    And re “The Bible has been shown to be historically accurate, claims to be the word of God, and prophecies contained in the Bible have proven to be accurate. No other holy book can claim the accuracy of fulfilled prophecy as shown down through history.” Damn I must have bought the wrong Bible because my Bible can’t claim any of those things.

  7. Oh, I forgot to mention, my version of the teleological argument goes the other way:

    1. The statement that “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” is at best an opinion.
    2. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would never allow his believers to use opinions as proofs.
    3. Therefore, if the proof is true then God does not exist.

  8. “can easily be demonstrated and observed in everyday life.”
    Then I’d like Dewain to identify the designer of all the snowflakes and the grains of sand.

  9. @Steve Ruis
    I think that this is a version of your point:
    A design is a recognition of limits to actions. It doesn’t make sense to speak of an omnipotent actor having limits. Particularly when we are speaking of design from a human point of view, any actor which is beyond human limits is not constrained by human design. A super-natural actor is not constrained by natural designs.

  10. Steve Ruis says:

    Re “the universe has a highly complex design” Hello? Could you point out that design? Describe it. It seems like most stuff is scattered around at random.

    Indeed. We can see galaxies colliding, stars exploding, planets and their moons are heavily cratered by asteroid bombardment, and space is full of debris from a variety of causes — so where’s the design?

  11. “Indeed. We can see galaxies colliding, stars exploding, planets and their moons are heavily cratered by asteroid bombardment, and space is full of debris from a variety of causes — so where’s the design?”

    Oh, c’mon Curmie… you know the answer to that!

    It was a PERFECT design BEFORE the fall, after that CHAOS reigned!