Creationist Wisdom #842: Oregon Genius

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears in the Curry Coastal Pilot of Brookings, Oregon. The letter is titled Life from life , and it’s the second item at that link. 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 has “Dr.” in front of his name, but we can’t figure out who he is. His first name is Steve. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

A federal judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover decided to censor what you may read and determined public school students are not allowed to know about intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He’s referring, of course, to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. But kiddies are free to go on the internet and read all the creationist garbage they want. Then he says:

The truth is that Louis Pasteur proved the law of biogenesis that life comes from life.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s debunked under the heading “Law of Biogenesis” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. The fun is just beginning. Steve tells us:

Materialist evolution is a nonstarter because it cannot explain its own existence. Variations are possible within a species, but microevolution is limited within kinds or breeds. Macroevolution or the creation of a new breed through evolutions has never been witnessed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s the micro-macro mambo, also debunked at the last link we gave you. Steve continues:

Mutations are copying errors and are not a path to complex systems. There are no known examples of a mutation adding complexity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! See New ‘Information’ from Gene Duplication. Let’s read on:

There is a limit beyond which something is for all practical purposes impossible. Generally, anything with less than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power of occurring randomly is essentially impossible. The chance of a living cell occurring by random chance would be 1 of 10 to the 33,000th power, which is far beyond zero.

Wowie! 1 in 1033,000? The odds against life keep getting bigger. And now we come to the end:

Science students have a right to know that life cannot occur without intelligent design. Life was either created by God or evolved from non-living matter by accident. There is no third choice. Students have the right to hear the facts and make up their own mind.

These letters get better all the time. Way to go, Steve!

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

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #842: Oregon Genius

  1. Michael Fugate

    Steve is a world famous author…

    And “He is currently a volunteer chaplain at Pelican Bay Prison, a maximum security California state prison. “

  2. My favourite is the “far beyond zero” bit.

  3. “My favourite is the “far beyond zero” bit.”

    He has a point in that his make believe number isn’t zero. On the other hand Dr Steve is also at the “far beyond zero” point that he imagines.

  4. Has any creationist given an estimate of the probability that an unlimited agent would come up with this particular design of life?
    My estimate of the probability is zero.

  5. Like every apologist the creationist will answer that that probability is exactly 1 because theology.

  6. Does a creatonist ever recognize the importance of the answer? That recognition would entail that “God did it” is subject to a similar analysis of probability.

  7. I just came across the concept of “affective tipping point”. This seems to hold out hope that reason and reality can produce an effect.

  8. “Does a creatonist ever ….:
    Asking the question is answering it, isn’t it? Creationists (and not only creationists) are ready to recognize everything and anything as long as they can maintain “God”. As soon as they don’t anymore they are likely to get rid of it.
    I googled “affective tipping point” and read “voters become more supportive of a preferred candidate in the face of negatively valenced information.”

    It seems to be in line with the well known phenomen in psychology that people decide first and only then rationalize. Obiously because people still do change their views now and then there must be an affective tipping point. There are many stories to found on internet from ex-creationists. But I don’t think an optimal strategy to bring creationists to that point can be formulated. Public debates and exchanges of comments on internet hardly work directly. Indirect results (long term, silent bystanders) are impossible to measure. So I think a multiple strategy is best. Who knows? Creacrap seems to be on a gradual decline in the USA.

  9. I came across “affective tipping point” in Stevn Pinker’s “Enlightnebt Now”, chapter 21 “Reason” where he is making suggestions about how we can deal with denial of reason by arguing reasonably.