Creationist Wisdom #845: Genius in Wales

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears at the website WalesOnline, which refers to itself as “as Wales’ premier outlet for breaking news.” They’re located in Cardiff, the capital of Wales. The letter is titled Man’s origins cannot be proven, and it’s the third letter at that link. They don’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. We don’t know his first name because he uses only his initials, which are RH. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Reader Dennis Coughlin (Letters, February 22) makes a case against the expansion of faith schools and encourages the pursuit of a secular agenda.

RH is referring to this: Wales should pursue a secular schools agenda, about which he says:

On the pros and cons of faith schools, suffice it to say that there are probably some good and others decidedly not so. But I would like to pick up on Mr Coughlin’s point about schools which teach creationism. I take it that the gentleman holds to a long-age evolutionary world view.

Egad — the “long-age evolutionary world view.” RH doesn’t like that. He tells us:

It needs to be emphasised that man’s origins cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, so a belief in evolution or in creation are both faith positions.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

So why is the theory of evolution taught as fact in many of our schools and colleges? These should be places not to indoctrinate people , but rather to encourage questioning about the wonders and mysteries of life, and where honest answers should be given if possible.

Yes — the kiddies should be taught about the mysteries of life. Let’s read on:

Our pupils should learn that a molecules-to-man evolutionary belief demands that one believe in spontaneous generation – something proven to be impossible. Yes, it takes great faith to be an evolutionist. A belief in creation on the other hand, points to a Creator and accountability to that Creator, leading to the desire to be guided by Biblical principles.

Creation is so much more sensible! Another excerpt:

It cannot be any coincidence that the the drastic drop in the nation’s moral standards and the rise of secular humanism has coincided with the demise of Christianity.

It’s clearly cause and effect. There was no immorality before the schools started teaching evolution. Here’s more

In a week which has just seen the passing of the evangelist Billy Graham, I find myself somewhat in agreement with our letter writer.

Huh? We thought he disagreed with that earlier letter. What’s going on here? It’s explained at the end of RH’s letter::

Yes, it’s high time we ditched religion – and welcomed again the preaching of the Gospel.

These letters rarely surprise us, but that was certainly unexpected. And hey — it makes sense!

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #845: Genius in Wales

  1. There is fairly common opinion among evangelical Christians that they do not have a religion, that true Christianity is not a religion. I have not investigated what their point is. Perhaps it is related to the rejection of theology and is anti intellectualism.

  2. “…It cannot be any coincidence that the the drastic drop in the nation’s moral standards …” What drop in morality? OH! Right! Forgot we are now trying to treat others (gays) fairly….very immoral of us!!!

  3. Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.
    Ecclesiastes 7:10

  4. Oh dear lord, not that “It’s a personal relationship with Jesus” argument again. This is not a robbery, this is a personal affection with other people’s money. Now hand it over.

  5. @Draken
    That argument is a clear case of the fallacies of composition or division.
    It is an argument against, if anything, naturalistic reproduction of the idividual, not against evolution of the “kind”. Remiding me of Universalism, that there is a relationship with the species, not the individual.

  6. “It needs to be emphasised that man’s origins cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, so a belief in evolution or in creation are both faith positions.”

    Leaving aside definitions of proof and faith, this human is quite happy to accept the evidence from genetics and paleontology that I and my kind are result of billions of years of evolution rather than either intelligent (!?) design or poof on the 6th day of ill-defined week.

  7. As far as the evidence for evolution, I would first mention the evidence which is obvious to me and Darwin, rather than relying on recent science: taxonomy.
    And would also mention the lack of any competing explanation. And, for me, the weakness of the negative position. Every time creationists speak, it adds a little more for evolution.

  8. My turn to be pedantic: taxonomy is not evidence, it’s categorizing evidence. But yeah, different species having things in common (which justifies taxonomy) is evidence for common ancestry.

  9. Eric Lipps

    Creationists, of course, say it’s evidence for a common design, and Designer, instead. But then they have to account for the galloping you-know-what which would be needed to turn the limited number of “kinds” preserved on the Ark into the millions of species which exist today. And that’s where the pretense of science goes out the window and miracles start coming in.