Creationist Wisdom #913: Science Has No Answers

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Oshawa Express, a weekly newspaper from Oshawa in Ontario, Canada. They have no comments feature. The letter is titled Don’t look to science for answers.

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 Joe. 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 forthcoming mission won’t find life on Mars or anywhere in the solar system; no bacteria, no single cell. [A bold prediction!] Modern micro-biology shows, due to its complexity, to be virtually impossible for life to arise by chance. Scientists can’t explain how life arose from non-life, or been able to create life from non-life. They say give them time and they’ll have an answer. We’re expected to accept it by faith.

Faith? That’s for idiots! Then he says:

Scientists can’t explain how the universe arose from nothing, what caused the big bang or where all matter and energy came from. We’ve never seen anything arise from nothing or been able to produce anything from nothing. [Except creationism.] They can’t explain how the universe, and everything in it, arranges itself in an orderly fashion, from galaxies right down to atoms and molecules. They say give them time and they’ll find an answer. We’re expected to accept it by faith.

Faith again. Phooey on faith! Joe tells us:

Carl Sagan says the cosmos is all that is, was or ever will be. For that to be a scientific fact, one making the assertion would’ve needed to be there from beginning of time and there at the end. [Hey, Sagan: Were you there?] He’d need to be present everywhere in the universe at the same time and know all there is to know. Sounds like God.

Sagan was a fool! Joe continues:

SETI is futile search for intelligent life. It’d take four years to receive a signal from the nearest star and 10,000 years from a star 10,000 light-years away. [Wow! Joe is smart!] And that many years to receive signals from us. We don’t know what’s happening there right now.

He’s right, we don’t know anything! Let’s read on:

We can’t prove God’s existence by scientific means. Nor can we prove our existence comes through natural means. Both require steps of faith.

Science is useless! Another excerpt:

Latest scientific discoveries lean heavily to intelligent design. Read “The Case for a Creator.”

That’s not much of a citation. Joe is probably referring to the book by Lee Strobel. Wikipedia says it “consists of interviews with intelligent design advocates and Christian apologists who argue for the existence of a creator.”

And now we come to the end:

Sadly, naturalists have the largest megaphone. They don’t want to believe in a creator. The idea is repugnant to them.

So there you are. Listen to Joe, dear reader. He knows more than all those silly scientists.

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

18 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #913: Science Has No Answers

  1. Laurettte McGovern

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have a simpleminded answer to every deep, complicated question: God did it!

    Which god? When? How? Is god still doing it?

    Creationists never seem to get around to answering those questions.

  2. And all my life I’ve been thinking that Joe’s god was supposed to be omnipresent – everywhere in the Universe (and beyond) all the time! Now he tells me I was wrong all the time – or why would he demand for a search of the entire Universe that lasts eternal?
    Joe’s god is the Hide And Seek god.

  3. As I say to other dimwits like this one…prove science is silly…just throw away your cell-phone!! No?!? Hypocrite!

  4. Michael Fugate

    I didn’t know scientists were looking for gods using science.

  5. Some time, it would be interesting to hear from a creationist who is sufficiently self aware as to realize that all those difficulties apply to his own beliefs.
    Not likely.

  6. Carl Sagan says the cosmos is all that is, was or ever will be. For that to be a scientific fact, one making the assertion would’ve needed to be there from beginning of time and there at the end. [Hey, Sagan: Were you there?] He’d need to be present everywhere in the universe at the same time and know all there is to know. Sounds like God.

    Only to an idiot, or an IDiot (but I repeat myself).

    Carl Sagan was defining the cosmos as “that which contains everything”–everything–not merely matter and energy but whatever else might exist as well, rather than excluding everything non-material. But you’ll never get creationists to acknowledge that; they’re too committed to what SC calls Oogity-Boogity and too determined to condemn real science, and real scientists.

  7. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

  8. Rather difficult to accept that the OT god created billions of galaxies each with billions of stars many (most?) of which we now know have planets, and put life only on one of them. I find it easier to accept that life evolved by natural means on at least one of them. And, as I’ve said many times, I hope life beyond Earth is discovered in my lifetime.

  9. @TomS dreams of a miracle: “a creationist who is sufficiently self aware” will also be aware that he/she’s a liar and hence will either quit creacrap or keep on lying.
    “Not likely” is inaccurate. “Impossible” is much more precise.

  10. @FrankB
    I was thinking of William Paley, who did express a difficulty about why an omnipotent agent would resort to contrivance.

    Paley did think he had an answer, it’s true. A weak answer, but at least he thought a bit about it.

  11. Mark Germano

    Joe’s god can’t create life anywhere except on Earth! I guess all those design courses were a waste! What a loser! Sad!

  12. “Attention: God. This is the naturalists. We’ve got the entire universe surrounded. Come out with your immaterial hands up. If you don’t come out, we’ll be forced to use counter-apologetics. You have ten seconds.

    (Tense standoff)

    “…nine…ten. Okay, we’re coming in.”

    (Voice calling out): “Wait! Don’t shoot! I’m coming out!”

    Small, meek man steps out with hands on head. Naturalist lowers megaphone: “Why… I know him. That’s Joe Prochazka! He used to stack shelves at FabboMart.”

  13. Science is working on brain transplants. I recommend Joe put his name on the list.Will they work? You gotta have faith, Joe.

  14. “We can’t prove God’s existence by scientific means”.
    I thought that’s what the ID crowd is claiming?!

  15. @TomS: “I was thinking of William Paley”
    I would not call Paley a creationist as that is an anachronism, popular among many creationists. As Karen Armstrong quite convincingly showed creationism, like all forms of religious fundamentalism, is a 19th Century reaction to scientific progress and modernism, with Darwin’s Origin of Species at the core (from a creationist pov at least).
    Paley published several decades before Darwin.

    Paley may have been wrong, but there is no reason to doubt his integrity and self-awareness. You could as well blame Archimedes and Newton for not understanding Einstein’s Relativity.

  16. > “Modern micro-biology shows, due to its complexity, to be virtually impossible for life to arise by chance. “

    Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn’t a Fluke of Biology—It Was Physics

    The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of “entropy” or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things. The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

  17. I’m sure creationists will take refuge in the following from the Wired article:

    [Dr. Jeremy] England sees life, and its extraordinary confluence of form and function, as the ultimate outcome of dissipation-driven adaptation and self-replication. However, even with the fluctuation theorems in hand, the conditions on early Earth or inside a cell are far too complex to predict from first principles.

    Ah, yes: complexity again.

    Coffee cools down because nothing is heating it up, but England’s calculations suggested that groups of atoms that are driven by external energy sources can behave differently: They tend to start tapping into those energy sources, aligning and rearranging so as to better absorb the energy and dissipate it as heat.

    The fact that open systems don’t have to succumb to entropy is a major point creationists either miss or deliberately deny in order to draft science into their service.

  18. The only Intelligent designers about which we have any knowledge of their actions and capabilities: humans and some other animals – Those intelligent designers are also subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
    If there were something happening contrary to thermodynamics, we shouldn’t look to agents which are
    constrained by thermodynamics. We have no reason to suspect that intelligent designers can design their way out of the laws of thermodynamics.
    Of course, no one has bothered to address this.