Creationist Wisdom #864: The Australian

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Port Lincoln Times of Port Lincoln, South Australia. The title is Competing gods, and the newspaper has a comments section.

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 three initials are W.C.K., so we don’t know what to call him. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]. Here we go!

Just recently on the Sky News channel I saw an item where Sir David Attenborough was walking with her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I think it was in the palace garden. It is amazing these two people who represent two different belief systems have such a relationship that they seem to have. I think both parties should be commended.

They have different belief systems? Well, David Attenborough is known to be an opponent of creationism. We don’t know the queen’s beliefs. The letter-writer explains:

The Queen is the head of the Church of England (so I believe), the Queen of England and head of many Commonwealth countries including Australia, even though it may be in name only. England, Australia and America, as Christian nations, have truly been blessed because their leaders and forefathers believed in an intelligent creator God, who gave us his word and his only Son to build our nations and our lives upon.

[*Groan*] Regarding America, see Is America a “Christian Nation”? As for England and Australia, they aren’t theocracies, and the Anglicans don’t oppose science. Anyway, then the letter-writer says:

To throw away our belief in God as Creator and that we haven’t been created in the image of God, as the Bible says, then these great nations are on shaky ground.

Ooooooooooooh! Shaky ground! After that he tells us:

As Sir David Attenborough and the Queen continued their walk, Sir David noticed a sundial partly shaded by a tree, that therefore would not have shown the correct time. The Queen was quick to say it should be shifted into the sun’s light again. I believe there could be a prophetic message here.

A prophetic message? What could it be? He continues:

For the sundial to function there has to be certain scientific principles and laws. Where did the laws that govern the ‘Big Bang’, heat, energy, power of the atom just to name a few, come from?

Ooooooooooooh! A most profound question! Let’s read on:

Louis Pasteur demonstrated many years ago that life only comes from life.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We debunk that old clunker in Common Creationist Claims Confuted — if you go there, scroll doen to “Law of Biogenesis.” Another excerpt:

Man has yet to create a rock or life out of nothing and if he did it would show it took an intelligent brain to do so.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Intelligent design wins whether we can create life or not. Here’s more:

The complexity of the living cell, with its genetic code in the DNA, is a miracle in itself. Why male and female? Why can a man and a woman expect to have a baby human and not a baby ape?

No comment is necessary. And now we come to the end:

When the God of evolution dethrones the God of creation then something needs to be said. Maybe it’s time to check our sundial and have a long hard look at time, hoping that it is not past midnight.

We don’t know what to make of this one. Maybe the letter-writer’s problem is that he’s on the underside of the flat Earth.

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 #864: The Australian

  1. Our dear SC takes sides with mentally healthy christians: “the Anglicans don’t oppose science”
    James Ussher, an authority recognized by Ol’Hambo, was indirectly Anglican ….
    ….. but to be fair, that’s more than compensated by this Anglican vicar.

    http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060925roberts.shtml

  2. Michael Fugate

    When the God of evolution dethrones the God of creation then something needs to be said.

    And that is “Thank God, people have finally come to their senses.”

  3. It aint even difficult to find mindless maroons spouting idiocy!!!

  4. You would be hard pressed recognising midnight on a sundial.

  5. I find it interesting that WCK finds a sundial so important while ignoring a truly accurate timepiece like an atomic clock. A sundial has to be adjusted for the seasons, and is only approximate, etc. while atomic clocks do not suffer from those obvious problems. Does WCK also prefer living in a cave or has he advanced to a fireplace heated castle with a moat?

  6. “Why male and female?”

    Male/female in the sense of sperm/egg have evolved independently many times, with plants, animals and some algae being the most common examples. But, there are many organisms that have multiple sexes, though typically mating just involves any two of them. Among single cell organisms there are instances of 7, 9, and 49 sexes, to list a few, and there are some fungi with over 100 sexes. The idea is that with more than 2 sexes, individuals have a greater than 50% chance of finding a compatible partner. If there are 7 equally frequent sexes, the chance that the next encounter is compatible (of a different type) is ~85%. It’s all about getting genes into the next generation. That’s evolution, all natural.

  7. By now, Australia is post-Christian, and increasingly secular, like the Nordic countries. W.C.K’s letter is the usual catalogue of creationist howlers. Presumably, he believes in both natural laws-courtesy of his god-along with miracles, though the existence of one cancels out the other. Like all theists, he wants to have his cake, and eat it too.

  8. Dave Luckett

    Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is, as required by the Act of Succession, a Protestant Christian, and is a communicant and simultaneously Head and Governor of the Church of England. (When in Scotland she is held to be a member of the Church of Scotland, ie, Presbyterian.) She subscribes, without reservation, to the beliefs and practices required of a member of the Church of England, which do NOT include a literal belief in Genesis nor a rejection of the theory of evolution. I very strongly doubt that she has any such tendencies, but in this, as in all questions of personal belief not mandated by the British Constitution, a deathly silence is all you will ever get from her.

    The unwritten compact between Crown and people that is part and parcel of the British Constitution is a mystery even to themselves, and Lord alone knows what foreigners, especially Americans, make of it. At its heart, it is an understanding that the nation is something more than the political offices that govern it, and it needs a head and symbol that is not connected with those offices. But that symbol must not, by definition, have anything to do with politics, nor with any issue on which public opinion may be divided. The Crown takes no sides.

    Perhaps even Americans feel the need for such a symbol, and that is why they attach such a level of reverence to their flag. And it may seem totally paradoxical that I, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, can say, “God save the Queen”, without affirming the literal presence or authority of either. Weird. But there it is.

  9. Queen Elizabeth’s opinion on evolution- if, indeed, she had one- would be as utterly irrelevant as Pope Francis’s, or any other head of a religious body.

  10. FrankB, indeed, the rev Michael Roberts is an Anglican vicar, geologist, historian, scholarly defender of the CofE in particular and of the Church in general against accusations that it rejecled the idea of an old Earth (on the contrary, clergyman-naturalists helped establish it), and a longstanding colleague of mine in the British Centre for Science Education, which exists primarily to protect science teaching from creationists.