Creationist Wisdom #956: Everything Explained

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of Forum Communications which owns TV and radio stations in Fargo, North Dakota. The letter is titled Secular humanists are blinded by their beliefs despite flaws, and they don’t seem to have a comments section.

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 Mike. 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!

Has anyone ever noticed that advocates for the man-made climate change theory have a lot in common with those who believe in evolution? [No, really?] Both rely on many of the same underpinnings to prove their system of beliefs. Both would claim a “consensus” of scientists agree that their theory has been validated using proper scientific methods.

Yeah, all of those creeps say things like that. What does Mike think? He says:

However, projections and estimates play a crucial role in formulating their scientific hypothesis. So, like pealing back an onion, the flaws in their theories can be exposed once you begin to examine them.

Wowie — Mike is going to expose their flaws. This is great! He continues:

Their theories rely on certain half truths that appear convincing, ignore important variables, and make assumptions to ensure the desired outcome of their experiments. For example, there is no denying that earth’s temperature has changed from time to time over the years, but there is no proof that man is entirely responsible.

Amazing! What about evolution? Mike tells us:

Evolution points to the ability of animals to adapt and improve themselves over time as their proof. This is called “micro evolution” and is certainly true. However, despite the many attempted hoaxes [Gasp!], there has never been any evidence of the so-called, “missing link,” that would prove a species can successfully change or mutate into another species.

We’re shocked — shocked! Let’s read on:

The theory of evolution relies on the assumption that a “consensus” of scientists think the earth is really, really old, so that is why you can’t see any evidence of inter-species change. In other words, don’t trust your lying eyes. In addition, evolution advocates never mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics: All things are in a constant state of decay. This makes their creation, or “macro,” evolutionary theory impossible.

Egad, our professors lied to us! Another excerpt:

Now, all of this information has been known for many years, so what gives? Why do so many people cling so rigidly to their beliefs in support of evolution and man-made climate change, despite its many flaws? [Why?] I would argue that it is due to their religious viewpoint, or lack thereof.

Yes, that explains it! Skipping over a rant about secular humanism, we’re told:

The Christian view, on the other hand, is that we should use proper conservation efforts to manage the resources of this planet that God has given us, but we don’t worship the earth and its creatures. And, what everyone should understand by now, is that the primary goal of the evolution theory has always been to take God out of the picture.

Yeah, that was Darwin’s lifelong obsession. And now we come to the end:

If there is no God, you see, then there is no one to hold you accountable for your sins, and there is certainly no need for a Savior.

That was an incredible letter. Mike understands everything. Now you do too, dear reader.

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

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #956: Everything Explained

  1. Dave Luckett

    The ultimate sentence is the giveaway. This writer’s God is not God the Just Judge, but God the enforcer, God the punisher. This god is concerned with rules, and the rules relate to whatever God calls sin, which might be, and often is, unconcerned with justice or right. The rules are rules because they are God’s. That’s all you need to know.

    It’s an answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, I suppose. It’s Job’s answer. God is god because he’s god.

    Yes, yes, I know. I ought to be outraged at the utter ignorance of science displayed, and at the insouciant and blatantly false assumption by the writer of his own competence. Come to think of it, I am outraged by that. But still, I find myself wondering where the writer came by the attitude that rules are to be obeyed because they’re rules. That is, how does authoritarianism develop? Not to get all Freudian about it, but what was his father like?

  2. Michael Fugate

    If there is no god, then by definition there can be no sin.

  3. I’m not sure I have the space on this blog to point our all of Mike’s truly ignorant statements, but I definitely don’t have the time. Suffice it to say he got it all wrong.

  4. For example, he isn’t up to date with the YECs, who insist that there is evolution of species. It’s a matter of baraminology.

  5. I recommend Mike to study Matth. 7:3-5.

  6. I suspect evolution is in pretty safe hands when Mike the Great and Powerful Wordsmith doesn’t know anything about “pealing [sic] back an onion.”

    I have to go, now. I can hear the tolling of the church bells, summoning me to early morning mass stupidity with Mike and his creationist pals. Oh, what a peeling!

  7. For more on how attacks on evolution are directly mirrored in attacks on climate science, see Jay W Ricards on the 2017 March for Science: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/04/heading-into-todays-march-heres-when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus/. And this from EN November 28, 2009: “A cabal of leading scientists, politicians, and media concubines have conspired to lie about global warming. The reasons are obvious: power and money.”

  8. abeastwood says: “I’m not sure I have the space on this blog to point our all of Mike’s truly ignorant statements”

    I didn’t even try.

  9. skmarshall beat me to it. Apparently, Hambo is claiming against his insurance for–wait for it….–rain damage to his ‘Ark’

  10. Eric Lipps

    Their theories rely on certain half truths that appear convincing, ignore important variables, and make assumptions to ensure the desired outcome of their experiments. For example, there is no denying that earth’s temperature has changed from time to time over the years, but there is no proof that man is entirely responsible.

    And no scientist says it is–just that human activity plays a considerable role. What’s Ham’s beef against climate-change theorists, anyway? There’s nothing in the Bible about it.

    Evolution points to the ability of animals to adapt and improve themselves over time as their proof. This is called “micro evolution” and is certainly true. However, despite the many attempted hoaxes [Gasp!], there has never been any evidence of the so-called, “missing link,” that would prove a species can successfully change or mutate into another species.

    Groan. This one has been refuted so many times it’s even been abandoned by many creationists. That’s why the concept of “kind” was invented: to get around the overwhelming evidence for speciation.

    Ken Ham is becoming an embarrassment even to creationists, and that takes some doing.

  11. @Eric Lipps
    I think that the concept of kind was invented because of the difficulty of accommodating so many species on the Ark.

  12. Both. Plus a reference to the Bible.

  13. Oh how I love when they talk about consensus.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination#Taxonomy