Creationist Wisdom #904: Evolution’s Catch-22

Today we have a column that appears in the The Lion’s Roar, the student newspaper of Southeastern Louisiana University. It’s titled Higher power makes more sense, and they have 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. Besides, she’s still a student, and from her picture, she seems to be a sweet young lady. Her first name is Maiah. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I believe that evolutionism is a pretty faulty doctrine with holes like a block of Swiss cheese. Even though this is my belief, I do not find it necessary to parrot that oft-repeated evolutionism vs. creationism debate in its most typical form. … No, for that old debate has been reiterated so many times and in so many ways, the witness simply yawns to endure it again. That is why, though it is tempting for me to poke holes in the evolutionary theory, I would choose to better direct my time explaining why I am a candidate of creationism.

That’s fine with us. She says:

To be frank, one of the reasons that I firmly support creationism is because it makes sense. The thought of some “power,” or “existence,” that had superior foreknowledge and foresight to diversely create, is far more believable to me than “chance,” trillions of adaptations as the evolutionary theory insists.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Then she tells us:

According to the abstract theory of evolution [Abstract?], it is in a constant state of gradual mutational flux. I am convinced that such thing as a genetically “stable” population, not to mention community and biosphere, would be almost, if not entirely impossible.

The biosphere is always in flux, but beyond that, Maiah doesn’t believe in mutations. She explains why:

This can even be viewed in nature: If a black bear has only one cub as opposed to the usual two or three, then she will simply abandon it. If a bear is willing to abandon her cub just because it did not come in a pack of three, then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?

Hey, good point! Let’s read on:

This leads me to my second, parallel point: evolution does not make sense. Not that the concept is hard to understand, but that it is simply absurd. [Yeah!] With the sheer complexity and order of life and biology, even in something so basic as a single molecule of DNA, I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around it all “evolving” based on chance. I cannot, with any trace of sincerity, consider that the only distinction between me and an earwig is a couple of branches on a top-heavy, phylogenetic tree.

Maiah ain’t no kin to a creepy insect! She continues:

Moreover, the idea that mankind evolved from apes is simply preposterous. [Right!] I mean, if man really did evolve from apes, wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today? After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?

They’re extinct, but we have evidence that they once existed. Maiah should look at the Wikipedia article Homo.

She goes on and on, but that was the best of it — except for the way she ends her article. It was the source of our title:

Interestingly enough, although some scientists seem to look down upon the thought of a higher power, they themselves insist upon the fact that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements. If man is the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species, then why is religion one of the distinguishing factors of mankind? Does this not imply that awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence? I challenge the evolutionist to counter this Catch-22. [Her logic is undeniable!] As for me, my convictions are solid.

Face it, dear reader. Maiah is more evolved than you are.

To be fair to the student newspaper, they have another column with the contrary point of view: Evidence or faith as our model of origin. It’s definitely worth a look.

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

24 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #904: Evolution’s Catch-22

  1. So, she tells us that she is going to go positive: why creationism; not negative: what’s wrong with evolution.
    How many of you were expecting a positive description of an alternative?

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    She pretty much answers her own question, I don’t know if that really is a catch-22 more than it is pre-enlightenment thinking. Maybe a good one to talk over a few beers at SLU.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Best and brightest? The fastest? The strongest? Best senses? I think she is imagining a god and not a human.

  4. There was a bit about meerkats, which was very topical, in light of Annie Green Screen’s recent probing questions about why apes aren’t writing poetry, and sending rockets to the moon.

    Meerkats aren’t building temples and shrines and ziggurats. Maiah wants to know: why not?

    Banya: “Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The tin is round. They should call it ‘Roundtine.’

    “That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!”

  5. She follows here feelies. I wonder if she believes that the atom, and therefore all material stuff, is mostly empty space.

  6. ‘wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today?’ Creationists?

  7. I only have to quote sweet young Maiah:

    “With the sheer complexity …..”
    “that old debate has been reiterated so many times and in so many ways, the witness simply yawns to endure it again”

    And like TomS was quick to point out: Maiah did the exact opposite of what she announced with “That is why, though it is tempting for me to poke holes in the evolutionary theory, I would choose to better direct my time explaining why I am a candidate of creationism.”
    Ah well, with our dear SC I keep on hoping, even with very low expectations.

    My bet is that nobody is surprised by Maiah’s ignorance and/or dishonesty:

    “they themselves insist upon the fact that man is the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements.”
    No, Maiah, evolutionary biologists typically don’t insist on this at all – for Evolution Theory this is completely meaningless.

  8. First meerkat: “So you got that ziggurat built yet?”

    Second meerkat: “Nah. Who needs more stuff like that? I thought: why not just focus on standing upright, peering over long grass, and looking cute?”

    First meerkat: “Yeah, let’s see anyone else try to top that. Hey! I guess that makes us the best and brightest of all preceding evolutionary achievements!”

    Second meerkat: “Better break it gently to Maiah; she’s still just a kid…”

  9. “Maiah ain’t no kin to a creepy insect!”

    Au contraire, Maiah’s thinking is absolutely riddled with bugs!

  10. “If man is the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species, then why is religion one of the distinguishing factors of mankind? Does this not imply that awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence?”

    False premise, of course, but even if we grant it, argumentum, the conclusion does not follow. A conclusion that “awareness of a deity is now a new tier of evolutionary intelligence” would only be possible if humans were not merely “the best and brightest, the most evolved and logical of all species” but actually infallibly correct in their convictions. Religious creationists assume that most of humanity is wrong about evolution, so they can hardly believe that humans are infallibly correct. But also, no one could make such an assertion who has any knowledge at all of the history of ideas, let alone of how commonplace is human error, mistake, delusion and hallucination, Which would imply BOTH that Maiah is capable of entertaining two logically opposed convictions at the same time and ALSO that she has no such knowledge.

    But that would be par for the course, in a creationist. Also par is the smug conviction that this lamebrained idea is a “gotcha”. What on Earth are they learning instead of reason at college?

  11. Damn, screwed up the tag. Great heavenly Curmudgeon, take pity on my own human fallibility!

    [*Voice from above*] The tag has been fixed, but I think you meant arguendo.

  12. You’re right, I did.

  13. @Dave Luckett: Here’s a thought — perhaps we have evolved to readily accept religious belief.

    I’m not well-versed in philosophy or religions, so I don’t know if this is an original idea, but perhaps in the distant past powerful leaders within tribes put forth myths of a supernatural power or powers in order to control the behavior of those under their rule. Let’s assume further that non-believers were summarily killed — not too hard to believe given our modern history.

    So, the common people who survived to carry on reproduction were those whose brains accepted the idea of a deity, which brings us to where we are today, with a majority of those of us on the planet professing some form of religious belief.

    In order to support this hypothesis, all we have to do is look at well-documented events in our past and present — Leviticus, Joan of Arc, the Holocaust, jihad, etc., etc. One could argue that more people have been deliberately killed in the name of religion than from any other single reason.

  14. The whole truth

    Maiah stupidly vomited: “If a black bear has only one cub as opposed to the usual two or three, then she will simply abandon it.”

    Totally false. Bears do not abandon a cub just because it’s an only cub.

    Maiah also moronically drooled: “…then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?”

    And regarding evolution: “Not that the concept is hard to understand, but that it is simply absurd.”

    Maiah obviously doesn’t understand anything about evolution.

  15. I left a response, but can’t tell if it got through. I stuck to facts and didn’t get personal. She looks to be about 18 and got what in Louisiana passes for an education. If I was in the same boat, I’d probably be as confused as she is.

  16. Christine Janis

    Maiah also moronically drooled: “…then what does this mean for other species who notice that their offspring is beginning to grow an additional appendage?”

    It certainly explains why we don’t see any 5-legged bears.

  17. [The whole truth:] “Maiah obviously doesn’t understand anything about evolution.”

    Lets hope that, at the University, she will learn to find references before affirming something and to structure a logical argumentation. After having acquired some critical thinking skills, she may even come to discover that evolution is far more interesting than faith in invisible friends.

  18. Yeah, let’s hope that – but my expectations still are not high.

  19. CJ: “It certainly explains why we don’t see any 5-legged bears.”

    Yes, but evolution can’t explain how we got from three-legged bears to four-legged ones. Or from two to three, etc., etc.

  20. Christine Janis

    This is simple unbearable

  21. Or to consider the possibility that:
    “The [faith] is about how to go to heaven, not about how the heavens go.”

  22. CJ: I commented with tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course, and apologize if my joke was derivative.

  23. BTW Barbara Forrest is at Southeast Louisiana State University.

  24. Moreover, the idea that mankind evolved from apes is simply preposterous. [Right!] I mean, if man really did evolve from apes, wouldn’t we have some sort of transitional stage of ape-man with us today? After all, we have the ape. We have the man. Where then, is the ape-man?

    If we all supposedly had great-great-great-grandparents, where are our great-great-grandparents? Why aren’t they among us today?

    And of course dear Maia ignores, or simply doesn’t know, the fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t say that humans descended from any living species of ape, only that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor which resembled an ape.