Creationist Wisdom #922: Science Is Corrupt

This letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Herald of Everett, Washington. It’s titled Adaption by species not proof of evolution, and the newspaper has no 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 Samuel. 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!

How fascinating our earth is. One often wonders how, what with all the negative impacts to our environment, the earth compensates, and has been compensating for thousands of years.

Yeah, “thousands of years.” That’s your first clue, dear reader. Then Sammy says:

“Altered evolution” is a new buzz word in the scientific club where facts are often sullied by unproven presuppositions.

We never encountered that new buzz word, but that’s probably because we don’t belong to a “scientific club” like the one described by Sammy. He tells us:

“Fish growing smaller mouths” to avoid hooks. “Swallows developing smaller and more maneuverable wings” are observed changes and are facts in and of themselves. Species adaptation has been observed for centuries.

It looks like Sammy is dancing the “micro-macro mambo,” described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. He continues:

However, the myth that these changes are “changing the course of evolutionary history” has been driving scientific research built upon an unproven, never observed, un-reproduceable theory.

Ah yes — evolution is “an unproven, never observed, un-reproduceable theory.” But it’s supported by all the evidence, and contradicted by none. We should also point out that miraculous creation is also unproven, unobserved, and un-reproduceable. Additionally, unlike creationism, evolution makes testable predictions — see The Lessons of Tiktaalik. Ah well, let’s read on:

Speciation is proven using the scientific method. Evolution is not and never has been proven. [Gasp!] Therefore, conclusions by scientists in the absence of fact [Hee hee!], fall back for support upon unproven theory (belief) rather than observable facts.

This is powerful criticism! Sammy is revealing that scientists are a bunch of fools! The conclusion of his letter is absolutely devastating:

We gripe about corruption in all walks of life, so why are we not surprised that science has been corrupted by fuzzy thinking.

Sammy has given us much to think about here, dear reader. What do you make of it?

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

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #922: Science Is Corrupt

  1. SO having FAITH in the BELIEF in evilution is BAD!!!!
    Having FAITH in the BELIEF in gawd did it is good!!!
    Talk about shoving your head head up your own butt!!!

  2. However, the myth that these changes are “changing the course of evolutionary history” has been driving scientific research built upon an unproven, never observed, un-reproduceable theory.

    An almost hysterical comment and it’s a safe bet that irony totally eludes Sammy.

  3. “How fascinating our earth is. One often wonders how, what with all the negative impacts to our environment, the earth compensates, and has been compensating for thousands of years.”

    Nice global warming denial dog whistle.

  4. In 1852, Herbert Spencer wrote an essay, “The Development Hypothesis”, in whch he remarked that in pointing out a supposed failure of a naturalistic explanation, there is a deeper failure in a super-naturalistic “explanation”:

    “In a debate upon the development hypothesis, lately narrated to me by a friend, one of the disputants was described as arguing that, as in all our experience we know of no such phenomenon as the transmutation of species, it is unphilosophical to assume that transmutation of species ever takes place. Had I been present, I think that, passing over his assertion, which is open to criticism, I should have replied that, as in all our experience we have never known a species created, it was, by his own showing, unphilosophical to assume that any species ever had been created.”

    Spencer was writing seven years before the appearance of “On the Origin of Species”, so he was referring to the flawed theory of Lamarck, but even at that,

    “Those who cavalierly reject the theory of Lamarck and his followers, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”

    And it isn’t merely the lack of evidence for the “alternative”, it is the lack of an alternative:

    “Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call upon them to describe how special creations take place, I reply, that this is far less than they demand from the supporters of the development hypothesis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode; on the other hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actual mode. They do not say — Show us how this may take place; but they say — Show us how this does take place. So far from its being unreasonable to ask so much of them, it would be reasonable to ask not only for a possible mode of special creation, but for an ascertained mode; seeing that this is no greater a demand than they make upon their opponents.” (Italics in Spencer’s original text.)

    BTW, since this essay has appeared, many of the creationists have admitted – indeed insisted on – the natural evolution of species in favor of a typically vague “baraminology”. Not only do we have no conceivable mode for the creation of “kinds”, we don’t even have much of an idea about what are “kinds”. Something like a taxonomic family, but the taxonomic family of humans, Hominidae, also contains chimps, gorillas and orangutans, not to mention several extinct hominins: clearly unacceptable.

  5. “That’s your first clue, dear reader”
    Actually it’s my second. The first one “Earth compensates” strongly suggests Salami Sammy is a climate change denier as well.

    “We never encountered that new buzz word”
    Indeed. So I googled a bit:

    “Speciation is proven using the scientific method.”
    But foxes remain foxes, no doubt.

    @TomS: “we don’t even have much of an idea about what are “kinds”.
    So unsurprisingly creacrappers can’t agree on which hominide fossils are still apes and which ones already are human.

  6. @FrankB
    The Bible does not distinguish between the kind of humans and the kind of apes.
    The Bible never uses the Hebrew word “min” (usually translated as “kind”) in talking about humans.
    The mord “ape” in the King James Bible refers to what in modern English is “monkey”. Old World monkey, of course. (What about other languages – I don’t think that the English distinction is common in other languages.) Chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons and siamangs were not known to Europeans until later – I think it was not until the 18th or even 19th century. I don’t think that chimps, etc. were known in the Ancient Near East, either. Obviously, nothing about Neanderthals or Austrolpithecines or their kinds.
    I just went to Strong’s Concordance to the KJV, and there are only two mentions of the word “apes” (none for the singular) the Bible, 1 Kings 10:22 and the similar 2 Chronicles 9:21. The gifts brought to Solomon could possibly be very exotic animals. But in any case, there is nothing about a “kind” of “apes”.

  7. Inadvertent but genuine exchange — as opposed to invented, like my usual nonsense — at a party a few years ago:

    Nice creationist man: Adaptations aren’t evolution.
    Me: Aren’t they? Are they heritable?
    Man (Silence. Stares at me for a long time)
    Me: Are they heritable? Yes or no?
    Man’s wife (To the rescue): What I want to know is why we don’t see any half-humans, half-apes…

  8. Laurettte McGovern

    Wouldn’t it be a wonderful research project for some Creation “scientist” to actually list the “kinds” that were present on the ark and thus re-populated the planet. Resulting, of course, in the millions of animal (not to mention plant) species we have with us today.

  9. YECs have managed to pare down the numbers on the Ark by restricting them only to non-aquatic vertebrates. Only vertebrates have “wherein is the beath of life” (Gen 7:15). Insects and such could float on debris. And they were taken by “kind”, not species, where “kind” means “someting like a taxonomic family”.