Creationist Wisdom #852: Evidence of Creation

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (it’s actually a column) appears in the Murray Ledger & Times of Murray, Kentucky. It’s titled Is organic evolution a fact?, and the newspaper has a comments section, but we don’t see any comments yet.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s Jonnie Hutchison, pastor of the Green Plain church of Christ. He seems to be a regular contributor to that newspaper. We wrote about one of his columns before — see Evolution Has No Morality. We’ll give you some excerpts from the rev’s new column, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In most circles in our society the Darwinian “theory of organic evolution” is widely accepted as fact. It is taught in public schools as a fact. It is held to be a fact by most institutions of higher learning. It is stated as a fact in the media. Those who reject organic evolution are viewed as either religious fanatics or an ignorant, unenlightened “fundamentalist minority.”

The rev has described the problem — but it’s not a problem for him. He says:

Is the theory of organic evolution a fact? The very definition of a theory suggests that which is speculative and conjectural. If there is sufficient evidence to prove a theory, then it ceases to be a theory.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We see this all the time. Creationists love to confuse their drooling followers about the meaning of “theory,” so that it becomes nothing more that a wild guess — or even an arbitrary assumption. A good set of definitions is provided by the National Academy of Sciences: Definitions of Evolutionary Terms. There’s also this: Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions. The National Center for Science Education has definitions right here.

Having confused his readers about the meaning of “theory,” the rev continues:

Some have theorized that earth is being visited by aliens from another planet. Yet, merely advancing such a theory does not make it a fact no matter how many people may believe it. Such is the case with the theory of organic evolution. Where is the evidence that takes it from the realm of theory to fact?

Good question — where’s the evidence? The rev tells us:

Consider this: there is no scientific evidence that life has or can be produced from non-life by purely natural means. Yet, this is a necessary tenet in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists assume that life created itself by a process known as biogenesis or spontaneous generation. In essence, this process involved a dead rock, which begin to ooze non-living “primeval, prebiotic, organic soup” which was then struck by lightning and the soup came to life. This is, of course, a non-provable assumption. Where is the evidence that such occurred?

Admit it, dear reader. You have no evidence for that oozing rock, do you? The rev tells us what that means:

Since biogenesis is unprovable so is the theory of evolution for biogenesis is required for organic evolution to be a reality.

Wow! The rev has decisively disproved evolution! So what’s the alternative? Let’s read on:

The Bible identifies the origin of life. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7). … Which is more reasonable to believe – that life created itself by a mere chance occurrence from non-living material, or that an intelligent, all powerful, eternal God produced all life by His creative power?

He’s right! The God of the gaps is by far the more reasonable thing to believe. Not only that, but the rev has evidence for his belief. Here it comes:

The Psalmist wrote, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). The intricate design of this material universe is evidence, not only of the existence of God, but that He is responsible le [sic] for its origin.

Impressive, huh? And that’s not all. He has more evidence:

The placement of the sun and the moon relative to the earth allows life to exist. Is this a mere chance occurrence or by divine design? The existence of gravity which prevents us from floating off into space – is it merely a chance occurrence or is it by divine design?

Powerful questions! And now we come to the end:

The theory of evolution is unproven and unprovable. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that “God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1).

So there you are, dear reader. We started this blog post as skeptical, but now we’re convinced. We hope you are too — otherwise the Lake of Fire will be your eternal punishment.

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #852: Evidence of Creation

  1. “… otherwise the Lake of Fire will be your eternal punishment.”

    Good, that will give me an excellent chance to brush up on my thermodynamics knowledge. I should get *really* good at thermo given infinite time to study that topic.

  2. “Consider this:”
    Done so. And every single sentence that follows in that paragraph is blatantly incorrect. What conclusion will we draw?

  3. “… otherwise the Lake of Fire will be your eternal punishment.”

    Wait a minute. Don’t the Laws of Thermodynamics rule against an eternal Lake of Fire?

    Entropy is our salvation! Praise be to Entropy!

  4. If the firmament shows his handiwork, what does the non-existence of a firmament show?

  5. Those of you who are non-swimmers should take lessons so you will be able to tread water for a while while waiting for entropy to save you.

  6. What’s the temperature of the lake-o-fire, is it direct or convection heat? More importantly, how’s the fishing? Is it only lake fish, or do you get some river salmon or better still, a nice shark steak and do you catch them precooked?

  7. Michael Fugate

    I wonder if Jonnie has ever worn a cotton/polyester blend?

  8. Even as an atheist, i think we could be created…look at the buyBull, we see an ahole bigoted intolerant totally hate-filled gawd creating us in his image, and look at how the majority of people who are bigoted intolerant, hate-filled aholes, so I can see how they believe in creation!

  9. Eddie Janssen

    Message to Christians: Quoting Bible-texts is rhe quickest way to anoy non-christians.
    End of message.

  10. Some have theorized that earth is being visited by a divine being conceived in the womb of a human female. Yet, merely advancing such a theory does not make it a fact no matter how many people may believe it.

    There, fixed.

  11. Dave Luckett

    The rev has the comfortable certainty that his scientific illiteracy is shared by most, if not all of his flock – but he has gone further than even they. Every sentence he writes shows how carefully he has shielded his mind from knowledge, and now can hold forth with the confidence of one who not only doesn’t know, but who doesn’t know he doesn’t know. Meta-ignorance, yet!

    Or is that just another way of saying polystrate arrogance? You decide.

  12. Michael Fugate

    The truth is whatever I believe.

  13. “Since biogenesis is unprovable so is the theory of evolution for biogenesis is required for organic evolution to be a reality.”

    No, rev, this does not follow, but logic, like scientific literacy, has never been a strong point for creationists who’d rather rely on 2000-3000 year old texts.

  14. @Scientist
    They rely on ancient texts except:
    When the text says that the Sun makes a daily orbit of a motionless Earth.
    When the text has nothing to say in favor of micro-evolution or against macro-evolution.
    etc.

  15. @TomS
    Indeed, reliance is selective. Sort of like their quote-mining.

  16. Since biogenesis is unprovable so is the theory of evolution for biogenesis is required for organic evolution to be a reality.

    Shouldn’t that be abiogenesis? Not only does the good reverend not know what he’s talking about, he apparently doesn’t know what he’s saying either.

    And who says abiogenesis is unprovable? A case could be made that it’s unproven, but that’s not the same thing.

  17. @Eric Lipps
    We don’t know very much about the origin of language. It is an intractable problem, for the oldest record of language, writing, is in Egypt and Mesopotamia, a long time after the origin.
    We know a lot about language change.
    But language change is dependent on there having been an origin of language.