Creationist Wisdom #865: The Ultimate Test

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Baker City Herald, published three times a week in Baker City, Oregon, population 9,828. The title is Schools should teach evolution and creation, 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 her by using her full name. Her first name is Judy. Excerpts from her letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

It has come to my attention that science classes are studying evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s one of the best opening lines we’ve ever encountered in one of these letters. It appears that Judy was either home schooled or church schooled, and never had a real science class. Then, somehow, this shocking information has come to her attention. She says:

Of concern to me is the issue of indoctrinating students. Education should be teaching all sides of an issue. No one wants religion in the schools but let’s face it — there is religion in the schools and it is called anti-religion!

Was Judy ever taught all sides? We doubt it. Anyway, she explains the problem for us:

I say this because both evolution and creation are based on one’s world view. We cannot go back to witness our origin, so both are based on a belief system or religion. Both sides use the same evidence such as fossils to support their belief and draw conclusions based on their world view.

No need for us to comment. Judy’s brilliance speaks for itself. After that she tells us:

Scientists are obligated to explore all possibilities, aren’t they?

It’s difficult to explore creation. It happened so fast! Okay, here comes an old clunker:

Many great scientific discoveries in the past made by Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lister, Maxwell, etc., resulted because these scientists viewed the world through biblical glasses. I wonder if they would be allowed in today’s classrooms?

We debunked that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. If you go there, scroll down to “Great scientists of old were creationists.” Judy continues:

An article [we won’t bother linking to it] discusses “kinds” and “species” and its contents accentuate how the goal of education is compromised by excluding creation simply because it brings up the creator, God. Evolution has a god as well; it is man.

Ooooooooooooh! Man is the god of evolution. Let’s read on:

In the study of origins, it is either man’s word or God’s Word and students should have the opportunity to hear both sides and let them decide!

Yes, let the kiddies decide. Okay, dear reader, now brace yourself. Here comes the best part:

Each individual will be given the opportunity at their own death to validate which world view is correct.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve seen that as a threat, but no one ever said was a scientific experiment to validate creationism. Creationism is testable after all! Skipping a bit, we come to the end:

My opinion is that God is as integral to creation as Darwin is to evolution in teaching the subject of origins. We should give the students the tools to think critically and make up their own minds.

Now that this issue has come to Judy’s attention, we can expect some changes to be made in Oregon. We’ll be watching for it.

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 #865: The Ultimate Test

  1. Exclamation “Creationism is testable after all!” Classic Curmudgeon

  2. Michael Fugate

    My opinion is that God is as integral to creation as Darwin is to evolution in teaching the subject of origins. We should give the students the tools to think critically and make up their own minds.

    Creation wouldn’t happen without gods, evolution happens perfectly well without Darwin or any other scientist.

  3. Judy, Judy, Judy. It’s no good following lamely in the footsteps of your puppet masters.You’ve simply been Hammed, is all. Why keep telling us to take ‘God’s Word’ over the word of fallible man, when it’s fallible men- and women- trying to put this stuff over in the first place?
    And that last, dire warning about what happens at death- how we’ll all be judged by your god- is the mark of the true crank.

  4. “An article [we won’t bother linking to it]”
    This time it might be a serious omission, for two reasons.

    1) Judy doesn’t link to the article itself, but to an offshoot of the well known AiG site called ….. Answers Magazine. So I did a little search and found

    https://answersingenesis.org/hybrid-animals/great-species-mixup/

    The very first sentence is already about as brilliant as Judy’s opener:

    “The wild and woolly world of hybrids is setting evolutionary ideas back on their heels.”
    The second one is also a gem:

    “Species simply don’t arise in the way the evolutionary tree proposes.”
    Because ….. “separate species that can breed and produce unique hybrid babies”!
    I have to admit it – I’m silence because of my awe for this creacrap.

    Remember the name, Tom Hennigan. He’s such a genius that he doesn’t even appear in the AiG biography list.

  5. Ah, I got carried away a bit by Tom Hennigan.
    The first reason is Judy not being able to link properly.
    The second reason is TomH’s genius.

  6. Now that I know I’m a god, lemme get my thunderbolt out. I got some people to introduce it to.

  7. H.K. Fauskanger

    The rhetoric is all AIG standard fare. No need to wonder about where Judy has picked up her ideas on the subject.

  8. Each individual will be given the opportunity at their own death to validate which world view is correct.

    You are all going to Hades, told you so! Yep, that sums up all of the critical thought for most fundamentalists. Wonder why their god bothered to give them a brain in the first place if all they were going to do was to repeat what they were told as children?

  9. @EJB
    There is an argument used by creationists which supposedly says that evolution by natural selection cannot account for the ability of the human brain to discover the truth.
    Of course, the argument is as flawed as is usual for anti-evolutionoary arguments are.
    But what interests me is that the ant-evolutionists are telling us that God didn’t give us brains capable of reasoning correctly about evolution. (BTW, the Bible doesn’t tell us anything about the supposed falseness of evolution, either.) Once again, the anti-evolutionists are tied up in knots of Mobius strips of arguments of their own making.

  10. As we say down here in Georgia: “Bless her heart.” 😉

  11. @TomS
    “There is an argument used by creationists which supposedly says that evolution by natural selection cannot account for the ability of the human brain to discover the truth.”

    Well, to be fair, this is where the religionists have a point. It seems to be a major conundrum, explaining how something as complex as consciousness could have arisen from non-conscious processes. I’m still trying to wrap my head around it.

    I’m currently listening again to physicist Sean Carroll’s “The Big Picture” in which he takes a very long and difficult road to explain just how this could have happened and why it seems to be the inevitable result of living in the universe in which we find ourselves. If I’m understanding him correctly, it seems to be inherent in the very nature of matter that, given the right conditions, life — and eventually consciousness — will inevitably arise.

  12. @Curt Conan
    1. How does an anti-evolutionist explain the origin of conciousness (or of anything)? The fact that I cannot exlain someting-or-other does not mean that there is no evolutionary explanation. Even if I can show that there is no
    evolutionary explanation, or even that htere is no possibioity of a natural explanation does not mean that there is a supernatural explanation.
    2. Design does not suffice as an explanation for the existence of someting. There must be an added step of production. Indeed, what is a supernatural design? What is a supernatural production according to a supernatural design?
    3.. Let us assume that there is no possibility of a natural explanation for conciousness. Let us,, further, suppose that this means that there is a supernatural design (of some kind or other, left unspecified) for my consciousness. Does this mean that there is a fatal flaw in the scientific explanation of reproduction? How does one deal with the problem of my, or your, or another’s counsciousness?
    4. Do other species of animals have consciousness? Does the existence of human consciusness exclude our evolutionary relationship with other conscious animals?
    5 How does design account for the fallibility of consciousness as well as the reliability?

  13. @CC feels generous today: “Well, to be fair, this is where the religionists have a point.”
    Another major conundrum is explaining how something as complex as superconductivity at relatively high temperatures is possible. Yet I have to meet the first apologist (not only creacrappers uses consciousness; Alvin Plantinga’s EAAN even uses it to argue against naturalism) who brings this up as “evidence” for a god.
    As TomS already strongly hinted at “science can’t explain consciousness hence god” is a God of the Gaps unless those apologists develop a reliable method that allows them to draw credible conclusions regarding “goddiddid”. Typically they don’t even try. Until then no, they don’t have a point at all.

  14. Eric Lipps

    I say this because both evolution and creation are based on one’s world view. We cannot go back to witness our origin, so both are based on a belief system or religion.

    We can’t go back in time to witness the birth of Jesus, either–and it’s surprising how little contemporary evidence there is of his existence. Even the Gospels were written decades after the date usually given for the Crucifixion, by people who didn’t personally witness it or any of the other events those books describe.

    As for evolution, the evidence we have is forensic, not merely “historical.” Forensic experts work with remains all the time to draw conclusions about what happened in the past–sometimes many years, even generations or centuries, in the past (as when they attempt to settle questions about how certain historical figures actually died.

  15. Calm down, y’all. I’m with you on this. Thus far, what I’ve gleaned from Carroll’s book makes more sense than anything I ever heard in church.

  16. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    If you want to teach creationism in schools then just do what Ken Ham and AiG have done, and have your own school. And then send your grandchildren there to deny them a real education.

  17. Judy asks “Scientists are obligated to explore all possibilities, aren’t they?” And, as anyone who has ever had any exposure to science would know, the answer is “No!” I sincerely doubt that any serious physicists would argue that they should teach the view that heavier objects fall faster than light objects or that geologists think it’s a good idea to discuss the idea that the earth might be flat rather than a spheroid.

    And the claim that “Evolution has a god as well; it is man.” makes no sense whatever. Nothing I’ve read by Darwin or any modern evolutionist implies that they think people are mythological supernatural inventions.