The Amazing Doctor Creta

There’s no news so far today about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, so we shall fill the void with the announcement of a discovery that has — until now — been carefully kept from the world. After years of solitary study, your Curmudgeon has learned the identity of the mastermind behind what is known as creation science.

We don’t yet know why his name has been kept a carefully guarded secret, but we don’t care. It is time for the world to learn about this mysterious genius. His name is Doctor Creta. His first name is Xerxes, but for some reason, he doesn’t like to use it. His creationist disciples refer to him only as “Dr. X,” or “Dr. Creta” — but never “Dr. X. Creta.” His intellectual output (so to speak) is enormous.

Our research indicates that it was he who developed the critical technique of demolishing the historical science of evolution with the question: “Were you there?” That alone would assure eternal fame for the good doctor, but there is so much more!

He restored to credibility the abandoned doctrines of Watchmaker analogy, the Junkyard tornado, and the God of the gaps.

He is also responsible for developing the theory of intelligent design, its methodology, and for the Discoveroids’ grandiose Wedge strategy. Additionally, he developed the doctrines of specified complexity, and Irreducible complexity. He alone conceived of transcendentally inspired information — about which see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information. Perhaps the most amazing thing of all is that he graciously allowed others to receive credit for those brilliant ideas. Verily, his modesty is as admirable as his brilliance.

No one can doubt that the output of Doctor Creta is pure. With our disclosure of his identity, we hope that he will, at last, receive the credit that he deserves.

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

12 responses to “The Amazing Doctor Creta

  1. Gwyllm Griffiths

    He sounds execrable.

  2. Gwyllm Griffiths

    And probably lacks Creta-bility..

  3. And was born in the Cretaceous.

  4. Gwyllm Griffiths


  5. It’s time again for the last news from the Dutch front.

    – “De Bijbel is geen handboek biologie”, wordt er strikt genomen een open deur ingetrapt.
    – If one says that the Bible is not a textbook biology it’s strictly speaking kicking in an open door.

    – Men bedoelt te zeggen, dat, omdat de Bijbel geen handboek biologie is, de biologische mededelingen in de Bijbel niet serieus te nemen zijn.
    – What one means is that, because the Bible isn’t a textbook biology, we should not take biological information in the Bible seriously.

    Immediately I was reminded of Lev. 11:13-19, bats are birds. Unfortunately the author (unknown to me) doesn’t reflect on this.

  6. @FrankB
    I was curious about the Dutch version of Leviticus, so I looked in a Dutch Bible, and there there was the word “vleermuis”. I don’;t know Dutch, but it looked to me as if the Dutch word for “bat” was “flying mouse”. Do the Dutch have the unscientific belief that bats are mice?

  7. It’s from German, Fledermaus (flapping mouse). It’s of course from the time people still thought they were flying mice.

  8. I rather doubt that it is from Modern Standard German, which has its roots in Old High German and other middle to high west germanic dialects. I have been led to believe that Dutch has its own separate history in low west germanic dialects like Old Dutch.
    If the Dutch – and the Germans – don’t believe that bats are mice, why do they persist in calling them “mice”? It is like the authors of the Bible calling bats “birds”.

  9. [TomS:] “If the Dutch – and the Germans – don’t believe that bats are mice, why do they persist in calling them “mice”?”

    Tradition. In French, the vernacular name of a chiropter is “chauve-souris” (lit., bald-mouse). I don’t know the proportion of people who are aware that they aren’t flying rodents but I would bet it is higher than that of those who think they are birds.

  10. Names of animals in ordinary language do not necessarily reflect scientific taxonomy. I realize that. Butterflies aren’t flies. Ladybugs aren’t bugs.

  11. ha ha. well OK not that funny. Nice try though. Love the blog. Keep up the good work.

  12. retiredsciguy

    @TomS: and what about dragonflies? Sun dogs? Gila monsters? Ant lions? Sea monkeys? Horned toads? Fox News?