Creationist Wisdom #881: Creation Is Documented

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Altoona Mirror of Altoona, Pennsylvania. The letter is titled Only creation explains abundance of species, and the newspaper has 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 David. 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!

I want to respond to a letter that argued the undeniable existence of evolution. My point is not to argue against the existence of evolution. An organism adapting to its environment over time makes some sense to me.

Then what’s David’s problem? He explains:

However, mutations typically do not result in a more complex and more sophisticated organism, which is the standard for change as defined by Darwin. Perhaps Darwin was too aggressive with his theory and mutations are the key element for a limited type of evolution.

Okay, we know where this is going. David is dancing the micro-macro mambo. We debunked that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, where we said:

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. … The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

After that he tells us:

According to Scripture, God created only one man and one woman while allowing the reproductive process to propagate the species. So how did humanity end up with so many diverse skin colors and facial features and physical characteristics? Evolution might be the reason for this outcome. Humanity’s outward physical appearance responded to the environmental elements. This makes some sense for me. So to this limited degree, I accept the existence of evolutionary processes. I do reject the notion of evolution from one species to a more complex species.

Interestingly, David isn’t using the typical creationist expressions “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution.” It’s possible that he never ran across the websites that promote such nonsense, and he has groped his way toward the same ideas on his own. Very impressive! He continues:

I know without doubt [Hee hee!] that evolution is not the source of life. Creation is the only process that could have resulted in the bounty of animals and plant life on this Earth that exists in a perfect balance.

Uh huh, perfect balance. That’s why species never go extinct. Let’s read on:

Unlike evolution, the creation process has been demonstrated and is documented in the Bible.

Ooooooooooooh! This should be good. David says:

There are four eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) where Jesus fed thousands of people when there was only enough food for a dozen. Where do you think the fish and bread came from? Out of thin air? Yes. Jesus (God who had taken on the form of man) created food out of thin air in sufficient quantities to turn a meal for 12 into a feast for thousands. What other explanation is there?

Wow — he’s right! See Feeding the multitude. And now we come to the end:

The creation of matter (something) from nothing is a challenge for the human mind to grasp. This is why He is a Lord worthy of our love, thanks and worship.

Well, dear reader, you can’t dispute the miracle of the loaves and fishes, can you? Then why do you cling to your godless theory of evolution?

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 #881: Creation Is Documented

  1. What these theists don’t seem to notice is that they claim their god made one man and one woman … and they instantly rebelled. Their god also made angels and assorted other helpers (why does an all-knowing and all-powerful god need helpers?) and then they rebelled and actually fought a war … in Heaven, for Pete’s sake. Doesn’t this bring into question their god’s competence, even just a teeny bit?

  2. Oh, I forgot to mention, that there are two “feeding the multitude” stories in the Bible, one close on the heals of the other. In each the disciples of Jesus are astonished at what happened. I can understand the first, but for the second? No “been there, done that” attitude from the disciples?

  3. The writer got it wrong in the third sentence. Organisms don’t adapt to the environment. They are born already adapted. Some of the organism’s population are born better adapted and survive to pass on their genes; those that aren’t don’t do so well.

  4. I have even better evidence than the bible! I saw a movie where a huge bird swooped down and carried off a long train, with the cars still linked together like sausage links. Since I saw this happen with my own eyes rather than merely reading about it, it has to be truer than any of the biblical fair tales.

    PS: I forgot to mention that some of the trains occupants were shooting at the huge bird with cannons, but that didn’t seem to do much.

  5. Dave Luckett

    I don’t suppose that David would consider this relevant, but two of his “eyewitnesses” never saw Jesus (Mark, Luke), and another, Matthew, is only a guess at attribution never claimed in the text. That leaves John, which seems to have material from the disciple, but certainly was overwritten by other hands unknown – as 21:24 implies – and is very late.

    But David, like most Christian creationists, probably knows very little about the text. This, of course, does not prevent him from making confident claims.

  6. I made a pretty strong comment refuting the writers position in the newspaper’s comment section. There hasn’t been any response as yet.

  7. Eric Lipps

    The “loaves and fishes” story has always seemed to me like a later addition to the text. The differences between the two accounts suggest that the story was added to the books at different times by different people, and in any case could hardly be the infallible Word of God.

  8. David hits us with a slam-dunk clincher of a rhetorical question:

    Jesus (God who had taken on the form of man) created food out of thin air in sufficient quantities to turn a meal for 12 into a feast for thousands. What other explanation is there?

    The ‘other’ explanation is the very same one that holds for the miracle of Zeus’ many transformations, such as assuming the form of a swan in order to seduce Leda….

  9. SteveR underestimates creacrap: “What these theists don’t seem to notice …”
    They do. You forget an important rule.

    1. Something good (like “exists in a perfect balance”): praise the Lord.
    2. Something bad (like “they instantly rebelled”): blame Homo Sapiens.

  10. The most damning fact about the Jesus accounts is the things he didn’t do: tell the people about germs and bacteria, or about the invisible building stones of matter, the sheer size of the universe, the nature of light, and so on. He told them nothing they didn’t already know. The alleged miracles he performed are dime a dozen in several other stories of miracle workers from many cultures. The only miracle is why modern Christians keep drooling over the Jesus story.

  11. For example, the creation story in Genesis 1 does not mention the creation of the majority of life on Earth: the microbes; and the majority of matter: hydrogen and helium and dark matter. The Bible is written as if it is the product of a culture of the Ancient Near East. (BTW the Book of Mormon is an example of the difficulty of writing an extended story as if it were written in a different culture: anachronisms keep intruding.)

  12. Hey Dave and exactly why would we care what your bunch of p’Tak fairy tales say about anything? Especially since the book o’BS does not say anything of any use to anyone?!?!?

  13. Dave Luckett

    L.Long, a little less of the “we”, here, unless you think you’re the Queen. I, for one, find it fascinating that people who’ll tell you that the Bible is holy and righteous and infallible yadayadayada, almost never know anything about its structure, history or provenance, or quite often about what it actually says. As for not being of any use to anyone, you’re not Jeremy Bentham either. I find “you shall know them by their fruits” and “the merciful shall receive mercy” to be quite useful.

  14. Like all creationists, David’s wittering on the subject of evolution is just a pretext to get to what he thinks is the good stuff i.e. the Bible, and miracle stories.

    It’s true the Bible contains some wisdom about the human condition, in a homiletic way, and some moderately diverting stories, mostly Old Testament, though as a kid I found Greek mythology far more wondrous and entertaining.

    But there’s just as much wisdom, and beauty, to be found in Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or even Kafka. And no-one pretends that their work was divinely inspired.

    I think what L.Long is taking issue with is the absurdly exalted claims that creationists make on behalf of the Bible.

  15. @Draken forgets an obvious example: “The most damning fact about the Jesus accounts ….”
    is that he didn’t tell his disciples anything about the Americas and Australia. Elementary particles and bacteria aren’t relevant for souls that need to be saved, but witholding information about two populated continents doesn’t make any sense if spreading the Good News is so important.

    ChrisS remembers his youth: “I found Greek mythology far more wondrous and entertaining.”
    Same with me. And several decades later I maintain that those ancient Greeks understood human psychology far better than Hebrew authors (also than the creators of American superheroes).
    Most of the good stuff in the Bible can be found elsewhere easily. What Jesus does deserve respect for is giving the voiceless a voice, the nobodies of his time and place confidence. But that doesn’t make the book any less outdated.

  16. Correct ChrisS I was commenting on the anti-science part of their p’Tak fairy tales. But I was not clear as Dave suggests. Will be more careful.

  17. Let’s see there have been thousands of religions and thousands of creation stories all conjured up by madmen. I just don’t know which one to believe.