Creationist Wisdom #946: Count the Clunkers

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Goshen News of Goshen, Indiana. It’s titled Evolution, creationism are both belief systems. It’s the first of two letters at that link, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Her first name is Barbara. Excerpts from her letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

So Mr. Jeschke (The Goshen News, March 15, 2019) reiterates the tired old unverified worldview that evolution is science and creationism is religion. So, we have to believe evolution because it is science.

We can’t find whatever it is that has upset Barbara, but it doesn’t matter. We get the general idea. And we’re starting the clunker count. Her claim that creationism isn’t religious is number one. Next she says:

Both evolution and creationism are belief systems. Both have scientists examining the evidence for the age of the earth.

Yeah, they’re both belief systems (clunker two) and both examine the evidence (clunker three). After that she tells us:

The evolutionists write up scientific articles and publish them in secular scientific journals, making them appear as facts. The creationists write up scientific articles and publish them in secular scientific journals [They do?], making them appear as facts.

*Groan* If something is published in a respected scientific journal, it will make clear distinctions between theories and observed facts. That’s also true if a creationist does good work that gets published in such a journal. But we’ll assign clunker four to Barbara’s claim about making things “appear” as facts. She continues:

The creationists also have scientists who write up scientific articles, but secular journals refuse to publish them becuase [sic] they just might prove that there is a god, a creator, and the Bible just might be right. [Clunker five.] These articles may be harder to find, but an inquisitive mind can find them [at creationist websites] and might be surprised at what they learn.

Not her best paragraph. Let’s read on:

As for Christians who believe God used evolution in creating the earth [Clunker six], they many want to explain how that could be.

We’d like an explanation of how a deity would use evolution to create the Earth, but we’re unlikely to get it. Another excerpt:

When God created organisms [Clunker seven.], he created very complex beings. But one thing he did not create was a mechanism for evolution.

Why would a god need a mechanism for doing anything? Here’s more:

Gene mutations and natural selection, as observed today, are not able to produce new kinds of organisms. [Clunker eight.] Gene mutations are more apt to produce disease, deformity, or death.

Isn’t that Behe’s argument? We’ll call it Clunker nine. And now we come to the end:

Natural selection can change kind characteristics but cannot produce a new kind.

In other words, micro, not macro evolution. That’s clunker ten. Okay, dear reader, now go back and review Barbara’s letter again. Tell us if we missed any clunkers.

Copyright © 2019. 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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #946: Count the Clunkers

  1. They just might prove that there is a god

    They just might,any day now!

  2. Our dear SC missed two clunkers indeed:
    The claim that evolution isn’t science.
    The claim that scientific journals are secular.

    But Barbara also got something right: “an inquisitive mind can find them [at creationist websites] and might be surprised at what they learn.”
    Indeed. I was surprised to learn that those creationist websites were that crappy.

  3. Ah, good old Goshen, IN, just up the road a couple of miles from my home town. Mr. Jeschke that Babs refers to is likely Dr. Marlin Jeschke, retired professor of philosophy and religion at Goshen College. Many GC folks get the locals riled up because they are pacifists, put their commitment to their faith above commitment to the US Government, and obviously don’t subscribe to the Hambone’s world view. Many of the area fundamentalist churches organize trips to Ham’s amazing tourist attraction, and the Elkhart County Fair often has a large booth filled with Hambo’s propaganda. If I happen to be in the area during the Fair, I try to stop by and needle them about the BS they are peddling.

  4. Barbara auditions for the Judy Garland role in a creationist version of ‘Meet Me in St. Louis’. Cues the pianist, who launches into ‘The Trolley Song.’

    “Clunk, clunk, clunk went my letter
    Ding, ding, ding went my brain
    Zing, zing, zing went the comments
    So I sing, sing, sing this refrain

    Blah, blah, blah said the Bible
    Yeah, yeah, yeah the Sacred Cows
    Lie, lie, lie like my preacher
    As I take upon the holy holy vows”

    Director in fourth row of darkened auditorium turns to his producer: “Ring Ken! Tell him we’ve found her the girl!”

  5. Michael Fugate

    Have creationists proved a god exists and did they do it using science?

  6. Christians who believe God used evolution in creating the earth
    The Catholic Church officially accepts evolution, I believe. They have some very good theologians.

    The RC Church does not take the bible to be a completely literal document like US evangelicals so they can adjust teachings in the face of new scientific knowledge. It just must be very good knowledge.

    Evolution? WHAT? Okay fire up those reserve theologians and get at it.

  7. @Michael Fugate
    Remember that science is based on the contingencies of the natural world, and its only reasoning is based on fallible human thought. Only the Bible has eternal, necessary, infallible truth.
    God is totally different from anything finite that we know of. Any proof of God must therefore be unique.

  8. @JohnK: it’s rather that the RCC allows her members to accept evolution theory. She’s also very OK with catholic creacrappers.