Creationist Wisdom #978: A Zillion Clunkers

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (it looks like a column) appears in the Northern Virginia Daily of Strasburg, Virginia. It’s titled Back to school and human beginnings. They have a comments section, but it’s been disabled for this item.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s George Bowers, Sr., described at the end as “senior pastor of Antioch Church of the Brethren and has authored 13 books … .” We’ll give you a few excerpts from the rev’s column, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

As the annual back-to-school ritual stares us in the face, it’s a good time to revisit some important aspects of education. One of those is to think critically and logically regarding all information that is taught and learned. Does new information make sense with what we already know? Has it been verified or is it either tainted with or totally opinion? What sources are cited and which ones are omitted?

As you will soon see, the rev doesn’t have a good opinion about what’s being taught in the schools. He says:

One particular area of interest is that of human origins. [Hee hee!] For many years, scientists have believed and taught that human beings gradually evolved from lower life forms over millions of years. This theory states that life arose from non-living molecules and gradually improved until humans eventually appeared. Although this idea has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by many, it’s important to examine it using the criteria above. Has life ever arisen from non-life? Pasteur disproved this erroneous belief in 1864.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That absurd clunker is debunked in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. But don’t leave us yet! the cavalcade of clunkers has only just begun. Next the rev tells us:

Not only has chemistry and biology failed to demonstrate this assumed truth [the origin of life], another educational discipline, mathematics, has calculated that the statistical probability of this occurring by random chance is far beyond any possibility, even in 100 billion years, much less 15.

Ooooooooooooh! Math says the origin of life is impossible! The rev continues:

In addition, the DNA molecule required for all aspects of life is so incredibly complicated that even one of its co-discoverers, Francis Crick, admitted there is no way it could have evolved even in millions of years.

Yeah! And Newton didn’t believe in gravity, and Galileo rejected the solar system, and Darwin was a creationist. Let’s read on:

Even if one concedes the undirected “miracle” of life arising from non-life, the leap from chimpanzee to human would take trillions of years, not to mention the supposed gradual ascent from a single cell to chimp.

Trillions of years! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another excerpt:

In addition, instead of evolving upward, research reveals that human DNA is actually spiraling downward due to the accumulation of mutations. This is exactly what one would expect based on Isaac Newton’s Second Law that states that things tend toward randomness, not complexity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The Second law of thermodynamics is one of Newton’s laws of motion.

We’re skipping a few of the rev’s clunkers, which you can discover for yourself if you care to do so. But by now you’ve got to be wondering: How can one person be so mixed up on so many different issues? We were wondering that too, until we found the answer in the rev’s final paragraph, in which he discloses the source of his wisdom. Here it comes:

Anyone with even half an interest in science owes it to themselves to examine the evidence for Biblical creation, which is sadly omitted in most classrooms. Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis both have excellent resources to delve deeper. As students head back to school next week, let’s keep looking for truth!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The rev gets his information from ol’ Hambo, and that explains everything! Good work, Rev!

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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #978: A Zillion Clunkers

  1. The Rev apparently paid more attention to the Goat Herders Guide to the Universe than to high school physics.

  2. Michael Fugate

    How does George decide if a source is excellent? It agrees with his prior belief. One wonders if he makes up Bible verses to give authority to his sermons?

  3. He didn’t pay attention to the Book ofGenesis, chapter 1.
    The first plants and animals came, by spontaneous generation, from the water and the ground.
    And Genesis has nothing at all to say about where the majority of life, the microbes, came from.

  4. Georgie Boy is a proud product of creacrap education.

  5. The reverend show us that if you show some people how to totally destroy their own power of reasoning they will eagerly finish the job on their own. All this time I thought that Newton’s* second law was that the willfully ignorant are always eager to say astonishingly stupid things.

    *Jimmy Newton, who lives down the street. The reverend is obviously not even remotely familiar with Isaac Newton so I had to select another person.

  6. Michael Fugate

    According to his bio, he taught high school agriculture for many years. Can you imagine what those lessons were like, given this column? “Pigs: clean or unclean?” “Weeds: reap what you sow?”

  7. Dear creationists, please give us something new. We are so booored ….

  8. Sorry, correction – Isaac Newton’s Second Law is new!

  9. You know, every time I read one of these entries and some creationist crank is quoted, I can’t help asking myself the obvious question: If Darwinian evolution is so ridiculous in scientific terms, why do 99.9% of actual scientists accept it? It’s not as though it jumped from hypothesis to consensus overnight; creationists had many real scientists on their side for many years, but opposition to evolution withered gradually among those believers as more evidence came in. (And of course, the few holdouts eventually died.)

    Too many creationists seem to imagine some sort of plot out of V: the Miniseries, directed not at scientists in general but at “true,” a-Bible a-believin’ scientists who accept divine creation, as the explanation. This is denial on a grand scale

  10. chris schilling

    They disabled the comments section at the item, but they didn’t disable the photo of the rev. One look at that face tells you all you need to know.

    Yes, I know: I’m full of the milk of human kindness (full of something, anyway, it may not be milk…)

  11. Stephen Kennedy

    This guy deserves some sort of award, like the Jolly Buffoon, for the most scientifically ignorant creationist comment ever quoted on this blog; Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics?! Newton’s only Second Law was of motion and stated that Force = mass x acceleration or in more modern terms Force is equal to the first derivative of momentum with respect to time. Newton, whose work was in the 17th century, knew nothing about Thermodynamics which was not studied by physicists until the 19th century. Someone should send this column to Hambo as feedback on the effectiveness of so called educational material.

  12. Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics is not original with this writer. I recall hearing about it many years ago from creationists.
    A search turned up a usage in the New York Times in 1986.