Creationist Wisdom #866: There Is No Evidence

This is a silly letter-to-the-editor, but it’s all we can find so far today. It appears in the Lewiston Tribune of Lewiston, Idaho. The title is Lacking evidence, 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 name is Fritz. 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!

The physical evidence for or against evolution is to be found in the fossil remains of plants and animals from the past.

That’s part of it. There’s also geology, which explains the age of the strata in which fossils are found. And for some reason, Fritz doesn’t mention comparative anatomy and DNA, which show the relationship of various species. All of that evidence supports the same picture of evolution. Anyway, he says:

There is still no known mechanism that produces Darwinian evolution: slow gradual change over time, decent with modification. [What?] Why do so many plants and animals alive today look like their fossil ancestors? Where is the change that Charles Darwin said could cause a bear to become a whale? There is no evidence.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! After that he tells us:

But wait. Why argue over evolution when no one can tell us how life began in the first place?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Because evolution is obviously a fact, regardless of how life actually began.

Fritz continues, and the bracketed material in our next excerpt is from his letter:

Richard Dawkins was asked: You have no idea how it [life] started? He replied: “No, nor has anybody.”

We tried to verify that quote. The best we could do is this entry in Conservapedia, which claims it’s from Expelled, Ben Stein’s creationist “documentary.” Whatever Dawkins said — or didn’t say — scientists have several testable ideas about the origin of life; but aside from their ancient scrolls, creationists don’t have a clue. Let’s read on:

He [Dawkins, presumably] then went on to explain: “Somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed the form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility.”

What? Is that science or science fiction?

[*Groan*] Panspermia is a remote possibility for the arrival of life on Earth, but even if Dawkins said that, all it would mean is that life arose by a natural process somewhere else. Another excerpt:

Did you notice the 3Ps? Those uncertainties that evolutionists constantly use? Probably, perhaps and possibility?

The 3 Ps? Hey — that could be original with Fritz. In contrast, creationists never have doubts, because they know The Truth. Fritz ends his letter with this:

Is there any wonder why NASA and SETI are so intent on finding life in outer space?

That was a very persuasive letter. Don’t you agree, dear reader?

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

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #866: There Is No Evidence

  1. Fritz asks “Is there any wonder why NASA and SETI are so intent on finding life in outer space?” Actually they’re looking for signs of life elsewhere in the universe. That’s because, Fritz, they are curious about the universe, unlike most creationists I’ve ever read, who seem uniformed and not curious about almost everything.

  2. “Where is the change that Charles Darwin said could cause a bear to become a whale?”
    Hmmmmm, Fritzie, where exactly did Darwin say that?
    Adding to our dear SC’s list of evidence I’d like to mention observed speciation – recorded since more than 100 years.

  3. FrankB says: “Adding to our dear SC’s list of evidence …”

    A few hours ago on another post, you referred to “Donald the Clown, voted into the White House by our dear SC.” I assume you’ve forgiven your dear SC for that, because you realize it was the Russians that made me do it.

  4. Excuses! Excuses, SC! Personally, I think you a momentary, temporary, loss of sanity!

  5. I have forgiven you, but for another reason: totally unintentionally Donald the Clown manages to produce some hopeful results. You might recall that I’m not exactly a fan of Hillary Clinton either and I strongly doubt she would have made presidents Kim and Moon talk to each other about making the Americans going to their meeting ….. In the same way I strongly doubt she would have brought the United Kingdom at least partially back into the European camp.
    The president of the USA making the world a better place by failing to MAGA – verily, these are interesting times.

  6. How many more times?

    Dawkins was asked by a creationist whether life could come about on Earth via transpermia. I saw the original interview so I know how it went.

    Dawkins agreed that life on Earth could have been transmitted through space but then went on to say that that would not be a solution to the creationists’ problem as it still had to be explained how life came about elsewhere.

    Creationist being creationists cut the front and end of the interview in order to suggest that Dawkins had suggested the proposition in the first place. He didn’t. But the naive Ben Stein fell for it.

  7. Eric Lipps

    Is there any wonder why NASA and SETI are so intent on finding life in outer space?

    *Groan*Not this again.

    Even if there isn’t any life anywhere beyond Earth, that proves nothing whatever as to whether evolution occurred here. Our planet could be “privileged” in the sense of being the only place where conditions are “just right” for life (although considering some of the places where life exists on Earth–there are creatures which live in volcanic vents at temperatures above the boiling point of water–life would seem to be more adaptable than creationists suppose), and life could still have arisen, and subsequently evolved, through natural processes alone.

    But then, apparently “Fritz” thinks SETI is a government organization, like NASA. And, um decent with modification? I’m sure we can all think of people who’d need to be modified to be decent [insert political joke here], but either Fritz doesn’t know how to spell or he puts too much faith in spell-checkers’ ability to spot obvious typos.

  8. Very many people, including people who accept evolution, think that the only evidence for evolution is the fossils.

  9. Sometimes I’m not decent, until I’ve been modified by putting on my trousers. Seriously, who expects someone who is illiterate to put together a descent- sorry! I meant decent!- argument in the first place?

  10. Eddie Janssen

    @FrankB: “Hmmmmm, Fritzie, where exactly did Darwin say that?”

    In chapter 6 of On the origin of species.
    “In North America the black bear was seen by
    Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the
    water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better
    adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears
    being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with
    larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale”.

  11. Eddie Janssen

    Hmm, that should be @FrankB
    That Fritzie got me mixed up. No intent to be sarcastic.

    [*Voice from above*] All is as it should be.

  12. @Samphire is generous: ” But the naive Ben Stein fell for it.”
    You can safely replace “naive” with “dishonest”.

    @EricL: “Even if there isn’t any life anywhere beyond Earth”
    But we already know that life beyond Earth is possible.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-does-the-tiny-waterbear-survive-in-outer-space-30891298/

    Of course that won’t satisfy creacrappers. They will point out – and for once rightly so – that tardigrades still come from Earth. Still these cuties have significantly weakened Fine Tuning and Privileged Earth. Of course conscious life is an entirely different issue.

    @TomS: “Very many people, including people who accept evolution, think that the only evidence for evolution is the fossils.”
    Which is unfortunate. Even before I turned 17 I already was aware of mutations. Googling “observed speciation” is very, very simple.

    @Eddie Janssie: “No intent to be sarcastic.”
    Don’t worry, I liked it. Thanks for the info. Some nitpicking: “a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale” is not the same as “a bear becoming a whale” but we cannot expect creacrappers like Fritzie to understand the difference.

  13. Darwin was on the right path, though; just wrong animal. I’ve a feeling that if someone as sharp-eyed as Huxley had had access to the the kind of extant fossils we now have, he might have made the connection to the extinct Artiodactyls as the likely ancestral group to today’s whales.

  14. Dave Luckett

    The letter should have been headed, “I know of no evidence, because I’m catastrophically ignorant”.

  15. Incidentally, serological evidence of the link between whales and artiodactyls was among the evidence withheld from the jury at the Scopes trial: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/the-scopes-monkey-trial-part-2-evidence-confrontation-resolution-consequences/

  16. Which of the following is better explained by design, rather than non-design?

    Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

    Upon applying above logic, how is the following better explained, by design, or non-design ?

    – Components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner.

    – Intermediate sub-products which have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.

    – Instructional complex information which is required for to make these sub-products and parts, to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place, and interconnected correctly in a larger system.

    – The making of computer hardware, and highly efficient information storage devices.

    – Creating software, based on a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint.

    – Information retrieval, transmission, signaling, and translation

    – The make of machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit – like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self distruction when needed to reach a higher end, and veritable micro-miniaturized factories where all before-metioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional.

    – Establishment of advanced communication systems. Signal relay stations. Signal without recognition is meaningless. Communication implies a signaling convention (a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!” A transmitter and receiver system made of physical materials, with a functional purpose, performing an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them, acting as information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware )

    – Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and ability to minimize the effects of errors.

    – A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language, which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assign the code of one system to the code of another system.

    – The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems, and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and quality-management techniques.

    – The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex industry-like production networks known.

    – The implementation of a product making system, only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction.

    – Creating machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort.

    – The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers – regulatory mechanisms – and control networks and systems.

    – Error check and detection, inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading and repair mechanisms.

    – Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine.

    – Complex production lines which depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning.

    – Create complex systems which are able to adapt to variating conditions.

    All above systems are a pre-requisite of life and biological Cells and implemented in an extremely ordered, complex, efficient manner.

  17. you have certainly just read the headline. Read the comments… and see, who is educating who….

  18. and your answer is a nice deflection to my above post. Congracts.