Creationist Wisdom #907: Science Is a Fairy Tale

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the News-Gazette of Champaign, Illinois. It doesn’t look like they have a comments feature. The letter is titled Philosophies are posing as science.

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 Bill. 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 word science simply means knowledge. [Huh?] The Darwinian atheists have hijacked the field of science and redefined science to mean naturalism. Naturalism means that the only explanation for the universe, humanity, all plants and animals is by natural processes.

That’s how ol’ Hambo defines science, and he does it because it’s nearly meaningless — see Creationism and Science. The National Academy of Sciences defines science as: “The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” Anyway, Bill says:

Basically, the religion of atheism [Hee hee!] is the only explanation for our existence. All their scientific endeavors are already foregone conclusions because their definition of science is exclusively naturalism.

Bill is definitely a fan of Hambo’s website. Then he tells us:

The Big Bang philosophy is an atheistic explanation of the universe. Ninety-six percent of the stuff (dark matter and dark energy), we do not know what it is. Based on this fact, it is ludicrous to say the Big Bang Theory is based on fact.

Right — no facts. Genesis is so much better! Bill continues:

Another ludicrous non-scientific theory is that life came from non-life through natural processes. Also, there is no evidence in the fossil record of molecules to man based on natural processes. [Groan!] The atheistic worldview is a fairy tale.

That’s more Hambo stuff, including the “molecules to man” expression. Let’s read on:

Biblical Christianity is redemption, reconciliation and restoration to our creator. There is no conflict between my Biblical beliefs (Genesis) and science.

How can Bill’s religion conflict with science when it’s based on no observable facts? It’s just something that’s out there — way out there. Another excerpt:

The atheists have not disproven God and the Bible. I am vehemently opposed to atheism and unproven atheistic philosophies masquerading as science.

Science is all about observing and explaining reality. It doesn’t worry about disproving fairies, leprechauns or a thousand other folk-beliefs for which there is no evidence. But wait — Bill has evidence, and he tells us what it is:

Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Can’t argue with that! And now we come to the end:

By the way, everyone believes in God at the moment of death, even the godless unrepentant atheist.

We haven’t died yet, so we can’t argue with that either. Great letter, Bill!

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

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #907: Science Is a Fairy Tale

  1. The word “science” indeed comes from Latin roots meaning “to know,” but that is merely the etymology of the word. We now understand science to be a way of knowing things, specifically about nature.

    Apparently our letter writer is unaware that science used to be called “natural philosophy” (Yes, it was a branch of philosophy!) and was always about understanding the workings of nature. It was true when there were “natural philosophers” and still true now that we have “scientists.”

  2. Bill’s so confused he’s not even wrong! About the only thing he gets right is that “atheists have not disproved god and the Bible”. As far as I know, most atheists never tried, since the lack of evidence for any god is reason enough not to bother about them. As Bertrand Russell proposed: “… it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”

  3. Michael Fugate

    There are some classic angry Bill letters in that paper:
    http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/2015-09-19/n-g-columnist-doesnt-understand-christianity.html
    Where he tells us the exact day Jesus was crucified – not sure which calendar…

  4. Basically, the religion of atheism [Hee hee!]is the only explanation for our existence. All their scientific endeavors are already foregone conclusions because their definition of science is exclusively naturalism.

    Horsesh–er, horse manure. Scientific endeavors are “foregone conclusions”? Not at all; the battle between the “steady state” theory of the universe and the Big Bang went on for decades, with eminent scientists on both sides. And that’s just one of may examples.

    Another ludicrous non-scientific theory is that life came from non-life through natural processes. Also, there is no evidence in the fossil record of molecules to man based on natural processes. [Groan!] The atheistic worldview is a fairy tale.

    There’s no evidence of anything in the fossil record that didn’t have parts, preferably hard parts, which could fossilize–which pretty well lets out microscopic organisms and early multicellular life. And there’s no evidence of Adam and Eve, either.

    By the way, everyone believes in God at the moment of death, even the godless unrepentant atheist.

    And the evidence for that is . . . well, never mind.

  5. Poor Bill, he is born in a bad century. Having been born in the 16th or 17th centuries, he would have been very happy. Perhaps a little more ignorant but probably not much.

  6. The etymology of the word “science” is from the Latin word “scire”, “to know”.
    But everyone shoud know that the etymology of a word is not an infallible guide to the meaning of the word. A few interesting etymologies:
    The English word “leave” and the German wrd “bieben” have the same etymology
    afforest; deforest; door; faubourg; foreclose; foreign; forensic; forest; forfeit; forum; hors d’oeuvre – all come from the same etymological root, roughly, “out of doors”
    “robe” has a etymology meaing “stolen”

  7. The only way to get the message across is through proper education.
    People tend to forget what they learned at school, unless it’s something they use regularly. That includes everything they learned in their science classes. I suggest that every single science lesson, starting with high school, should have some time devoted to explaining what science is, and what it does.

    For example, when they learn about oxygen, or radioactivity, or continental drift, or whatever – there should be a little discussion about how these things were discovered, how wrong hypotheses have been disproven, how good theories have been confirmed.

    In short, a science class should not be a recital of facts, or a heap of ‘knowledge’ which needs to be learned. Firstly, that would make science more exciting and memorable for later in life. Secondly, you would see less of the “science simply means knowledge” garbage in everyday life.

  8. Michael Fugate

    Is Bill implying this: the religion of Christianity is the only explanation for our existence. All their [Christian] scientific endeavors are already foregone conclusions because their definition of science is exclusively supernaturalism?

    When he says this:
    Basically, the religion of atheism is the only explanation for our existence. All their scientific endeavors are already foregone conclusions because their definition of science is exclusively naturalism.

  9. Ross Cameron

    Must remember-I`m a Darwinian atheist. Darwinian atheist. Darwinian atheist———–

  10. @Desnes Diev: “Having been born in the 16th or 17th centuries … Perhaps a little more ignorant but probably not much.”

    And he would have had the distinct advantage of not needing to work so hard at staying that ignorant as he does today!

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    “There is no conflict between my Biblical beliefs (Genesis) and science.”

    You mean the flimsy science you just exposed is compatible with your flimsy religious beliefs? Really, tell me more …

  12. BTW
    molecules to man
    is what happens in metabolism, reproduction, growth, etc. Is it atheistic to accept the naturalistic explanations of that?
    (In Genesis 1 the various living things come from the water or the ground. In Genesis 2 the man comes from the dust.)

  13. abeastwood … actually I would claim that science/ethics/philosophy has disproved so much of the buyBull that the remainder is not even good poetry. And since most gawds are suppose to interact with this world, science has disproved the (insert BS religion) gawd. The only gawd still viable is the deistic or neutral creator gawd, and who cares about that!?

  14. @L.Long: I agree completely. I was trying to point out that atheists (or at least I) don’t “try to disprove god” because there’s a complete lack of evidence that there are any. You said it more clearly.

  15. [Zetopan:] “And he would have had the distinct advantage of not needing to work so hard at staying that ignorant as he does today!”

    That’s true. Fortune is so cruel sometimes.

  16. Eric Lipps:
    What about stromatolites?