Creationist Wisdom #871: Genius in Wales

Today’s 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 How would Darwin fare if he were alive?, and it’s the second 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. His first name is John. 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!

Thankfully, the £10 note depicting evolutionary author Charles Darwin has now been replaced with one featuring a more legitimate fiction writer – Jane Austen.

Classy beginning. Then he says:

Despite popular opinion, it is important to note that Darwin did not “observe” or “prove” (macro)evolution. He simply concocted a “theory”, inspired by his noting the obvious: over time, a genus or species of creature can exhibit physical variations – even (and only) within its own animal “kind”.

[*Groan*] It’s the micro-macro mambo, described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. After that clunker, John tells us:

But just how would Darwin and his “ground-breaking” hypothesis fare if he were alive today and his musings were brand new? Not only would he be devastated at the total absence of his much-anticipated “missing link” fossil evidence, but any remaining credibility he enjoyed would be demolished by his lesser-known delusions being publicised.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He continues:

For instance, he wrote that all black people were intellectually and physically closer to apes than white people: “As [at] present between the negro or the Aborigine and the gorilla” (The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, 1887, p156).

As expected, we can’t find that alleged quote in an online text of Descent of Man. We previously posted about Darwin’s enlightened opinions on the subject, which are totally unlike those claimed by the letter-writer — see Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. Let’s read on:

Tragically, instead of this warped “evolved racial superiority” nonsense being rejected, it was widely accepted and later exploited to devastating effect.

[*Groan*] Descent of Man was published after slavery had been abolished in the US and most of Central and South America. You can see all the dates here: Abolitionism. But what accounts for the racial exploitation that occurred in the Western Hemisphere for the previous four centuries — or all over the world as far back as one cares to go? It certainly wasn’t Darwin. Another excerpt:

Although many ignorantly bleat that religion is the chief cause of most war, the actual number of people slaughtered by history’s religio-political, scripture-twisting hypocrites does not even come close to the colossal numbers killed by atheistic, Darwinist despots.

This guy doesn’t miss a single creationist clunker. See Hitler and Darwin, and also Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Here’s more from John:

But wait a second. If “human evolution” is true and we are all just godless “advanced apes”, what moral right do we have to condemn Hitler? After all, was he not merely a fellow primordial slime-evolved “super-monkey”, acting perfectly legally within German (Nazi) law, as he judiciously eliminated the “subhuman” from society to enable the “master race” to flourish?

Yeah, yeah, without the bible, there’s no morality That explains why all biologists are rapists and murders. Okay, let’s skip to the end:

How could a mindless, unthinking “evolutionary process” have blindly produced these elevated, uniquely human qualities – and why would it? Referring to the origin of these sublime virtues, the Bible simply states at Genesis 1:27: “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

This logical account [Hee hee!] restores human dignity to all people of all races, in sharp contrast to the debased lie of “human evolution”, which has also helped to make atheistic fools of the gullible and/or willing majority – akin to a colony of tiny ants at Kew Gardens who have all been duped into believing that the head gardener no longer exists.

So there you are. It’s good to know that creationism in Wales is just as “advanced” as in Hambo’s Kentucky or the Discoveroids’ Seattle.

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

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #871: Genius in Wales

  1. I didn’t realize we weren’t the only ones with wildly ignorant creationists. Wales must also put up with stupidity….. poor bastards.

  2. Scots wha hae!

    The welsh are well renowned for being, how shall we put this charitably, a bit backwards. The description of Wales as a place where men are men and sheep are scared is well merited!

  3. Michael Fugate

    He has another recent letter
    “Nevertheless, it is refreshing to hear from someone who takes an interest in the Bible which, although still the best-selling book of all time, is now largely either misunderstood, derided – or even despised – in our increasingly evolution “brainwashed”, atheistic and, consequently, violent and immoral world.”

  4. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    If we didn’t have creationists AiG wouldn’t waste time coming to the UK. We apparently have a creationist church here in Norfolk, somewhere in Norwich.

  5. Regarding the alleged quote from “Descent of Man”. The quote does exist and has, IMHO and speaking as an Australian, pretty much the thrust that the letter writer contends. Refer
    page 178 of the 1874 edition as found at Open Library.

  6. tedinoz, somehow I missed that. It’s a bit confusing. He’s talking about missing intermediates, and he says that when we’ve evolved beyond what we are now, and presently closely related intermediates become extinct, there will be am even bigger gap between us and our nearest ape relatives than there is now. But it does at least seem to suggest that the negro and Australian are intermediates. I don’t think he ever says anything like that anywhere else.

  7. Eric Lipps

    But just how would Darwin and his “ground-breaking” hypothesis fare if he were alive today and his musings were brand new? Not only would he be devastated at the total absence of his much-anticipated “missing link” fossil evidence, but any remaining credibility he enjoyed would be demolished by his lesser-known delusions being publicised.

    So why wasn’t Darwin “devastated” in the 1860s, when most scientists were still creationists?

    As for those “lesser-known delusions” about race, isn’t it the Bible-pounders who’ve always justified treating blacks as inferior on the basis that they’re degenerate brutes laboring under the curse of Ham? How is that better?

  8. Point-scoring debates about who’s racist, and who’s not, never seem to lead anywhere very interesting.

    It’s a slight irony, I suppose , that Dr. Harvey still uses quaint Victorian terms like ‘missing link’. Almost no-one outside of creationism and the popular media thinks of ‘transitionals’, or ‘intermediates’ that way. And the media are sometimes just as incompetent as creationists in reporting on evolution properly.

    We still live in a ‘liberal democracy’, so even the buffoons and crackpots get a look in. We’re assured of more letters like these, for a while yet.

    As to how Darwin, were he alive today, would fare on university campuses, he’d probably be ‘de-platformed’ by geniuses like Dr.Harvey.

    I don’t know what point I’m making here myself, exactly.

    I’m just idly riffing.

  9. Steven Thompson

    Regarding the quote from The Descent of Man ending in “the Australian and the gorilla,” it is possible that Darwin was discussing race. But he speaks of Caucasians as, for the moment, the most “civilized” group, not the most intelligent or furthest removed from nonhuman apes, and this suggests that he is emphasizing not the racial traits of Australian aborigines or Black Africans, but rather the continued existence of hunter-gatherer societies (“savages”) among these peoples.

    I have run across creationist writings who argue as if literacy were an inherent human condition, something that could be confidently invoked to show how dissimilar we are to nonhuman apes. James Perloff, in Tornado in a Junkyard, goes so far as to argue that since humans (in modern high-tech societies) learn to read by age six, humans must have invented writing within a few years of their creation, and humanity cannot be much older than alphabets and literature. I don’t think he was considering the implications this had for existing hunter-gatherer societies. But it does suggest that the existence of preliterate societies, or knowledge of such societies, makes the gap between humans and nonhuman primates seem less impassable.

  10. @Thespartanatheist “I didn’t realize ….”
    Then I assume you’re not aware of this either:

    Learn to read Dutch and I have some tasty websites for you.
    Heck, unlike you silly Americans we even have an ark of Noah that actually floats! Ha!

    @EricL is a bit desperate: “How is that better?”
    Obviously an atheist with subjective morals who in the logic of Ol’Hambo has no choice but not criticizing racism, as confirmed by Ol’Hambo’s logical fallacies is far and far worse than the christian sinner who actually owns slaves and whips than to death.

  11. The quotation clearly refers to states of civilisation. The entire chapter on races of Man is devoted to minimising dfferences, as here (p 205 of Penguin edition):

    “Those naturalists, on the other hand, who admit the principle of evolution, and this is now admitted by the majority of rising men, will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock; whether or not they may think fit to designate the races as distinct species, for the sake of expressing their amount of difference.”

    Elsewhere in the chapter, Darwin draws attention to the difficulties of subdividing humankind into races, let alone species, mentioning resemblances, cross-fertility, and the different numbers of races that had been suggested, from 2 to 63. He is certainly convinced of the superiority of what he calls the “civilized races”, but from his own experience he says that it is quite possible for a “full-blooded Negro” to be the intellectual equal of a white man, and it is not clear to what extent, if any, he regards to differences in levels of civilisation to be anything more than cultural.

  12. Dave Luckett

    Anybody who knows the Land of my Fathers (literally that, in my case) will be aware of its tradition of chapel Calvinism. Although spotty, where found it is fervent. (As Billy Connolly remarked, “Don’t knaw aboot tha’ – a bunch of
    religious fanatics wi’oot a fitba’ team.”) This correspondent is a representative of that tradition. And as Our Host says, he seems to be dedicated to filling all the squares on the creationist bingo card. But if bingo were tic-tac-toe (or naughts and crosses, as we say here), the centre square would be ignorance. It’s the one great beacon of darkness that obscures all.

    And not merely ignorance, but ignorance that has been carefully preserved as if in aspic, to lend it full piquancy – although there is nevertheless a whiff of corruption about it. To give vent to such disastrously false assertions in public, John must have actively avoided any contact with the Theory of Evolution, either as Darwin first explained its central theses, or in any of its development since. And he has absorbed some violently warped history, as well as some truly demented pseudo-philosophy.

    I suppose some purpose is served by displaying the utter incapacity of the creationist fringe, its intellectual sterility, its overweening hypocrisy, its instant recourse to slander, its addiction to falsehood. Alas, if it cannot be answered instantly in the same forum as it appears, there is little other point.

  13. Indeed, Paul. You put it judiciously and succinctly. Darwin was probably one of the first to really recognise the inherent commonality of the so-called ‘races’, despite plumping for European cultural superiority.