Creationist Wisdom #979: The Author

Great news, dear reader! We have a second letter-to-the-editor today. This one appears in The Press of Atlantic City, published in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It’s titled Proof lacking for science and attacks on religion, and the newspaper has 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 Donald. 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!

Regarding the recent letter, “Religious writings can’t prove without evidence”: Let me respond to this attack by a critic of a previous letter writer, who felt everyone should “respect religion and science.”

We don’t know what Donald is responding to, but it doesn’t matter. He says:

I think it is the critic who is confused, with his tortured convoluted explanation of how a hypothesis works, in his attempt to prove science right and the belief in God wrong (inferred). I suggest he check Webster’s Dictionary instead of parroting what atheistic scientists want us to believe.

Yeah, everything you need to know is in the dictionary. Donald tells us:

He demands proof of God’s existence. Have scientists proven their Big Bang Theory, which they insist created the universe, all from one pea-sized bit of matter? [Great response!] On the contrary, their theory was recently blown up, no pun intended, when it was recently discovered that not only is the universe expanding, as it would from an explosion, its expansion is accelerating, which it shouldn’t, because that’s opposite to how explosions work. Explosions gradually lose force, dissipate and collapse back on themselves. But the only thing collapsing here is the scientists’ Big Bang Theory. Time for another hypothesis?

The Big Bang is all washed up! Donald continues:

He brings up Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as an alternative to creationism. [Hee hee!] He seems more certain of Darwinism than Darwin himself, who admitted, in “The Origin of Species,” that failure to find any fossils of any species in the in-between transitional stage (absolutely necessary to validate his theory) “perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

A wee bit of quote-mining there. We discussed that one, with proper quotes from Darwin, in Creationist Wisdom #384: Quote-Mining Preacher. Let’s read on:

Though considered blasphemous in the scientific community, many scientists are now rethinking this idea of intelligent design.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone is jumping aboard the Discoveroids’ bandwagon. Donald gives us an example:

In an interview by David Ewing Duncan for Discover, leading scientist Francis S. Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and author of “The Language of God,” says: “Is there any dogma more unsupported by the facts than from the scientist who stands up and says, ‘I know there is no God’?”

Groan! First of all, that has nothing to do with the Discoveroids “theory” of intelligent design. Second, if Collins said that, he’s right. The existence (or non-existence) of supernatural deities isn’t scientifically demonstrable, therefore no one actually knows about their existence, one way or the other. Donald’s letter continues:

Scientists demand believers prove God exists. To that I say, prove he doesn’t.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Donald doesn’t understand the burden of proof. A fundamental rule is that he who makes a claim has the burden of proof. It makes perfect sense to demand evidence to support a claim that something exists; but no one has to prove that something doesn’t exist. If there’s no evidence of existence, non-existence is the default position. Hey, take a look at Donald’s last paragraph:

I’ve written a book that goes into this more, “Does God Exist? — Are Science and the Belief in God Compatible?” It’s available on Amazon.

Wowie — he wrote a book! Here it is at Amazon! It costs $31.47 in paperback! The publisher is AuthorHouse. Wikipedia has a write-up on them, and says they’re a “a self-publishing company.” Are we surprised?

So now we leave Donald and his letter. And we’re delighted to have received a bonus — he’s also a self-published genius. But we didn’t see any press release, so we’ll leave him off that list.

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

6 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #979: The Author

  1. Such a nice coincidence. Today I checked, the Dutch YEC-site. So I already was aware that the Big Bang “refuted”.

    “Het heelal dijt uit, menen veel astronomen. Men dacht zelfs te weten hoe snel het uitdijt, maar dat blijkt niet te kloppen. Nieuwe metingen van de Hubbletelescoop wijzen uit dat het universum sneller uitdijt dan voorspeld; wel 5 tot 9%! Is dat een probleem voor de Big Bang-theorie?”

    “Many astronomers think that the universe expands. They even thought they know how fast it expands, but this appears to be wrong. New measurements by Hublle’s telescope show that the universe expands faster than predicted, even 5 till 9%! Is that a problem for the Big Bang Theory?”

    “wordt het niet eens tijd om meer aandacht (en geld) te besteden aan de alternatieven van het Big Bang-model?”

    “Isn’t it about time to spend more attention (and money) to the alternatives to the Big Bang model?”

    Yeah, goddiddid 6000 years ago is such an excellent explanation for this too fast expansion.

  2. Once upon a time, there was a “solar neutrino problem”: the number of neutrinos detected from the Sun didn’t agree with the theory of nuclear fission of solar power. I remember having a discussion with a creationist who claimed that this was evidence that the hypothesis of millions or billions of years for the Sun’s age was wrong. My correspondent was insulted when I said that his argument was bizarre.
    I am not repentant. And I will take the risk again of observing that this argument against the Big Bag is bizarre.

  3. Just as many have said…. showing vague evidence that the BigBang is not perfectly shown, DOES NOT show that gawd-did-it!!!! Only showing EVIDENCE that gawd did it, shows gawd might have done it!!!

  4. @l.Lang
    Yes, and moreover, even if something supernatural was invovled, it makes no difference as to whether there was, or was not, a Big Bang.
    If you don’t like the Big Bang, saying Gioddidit doesn’t help.
    If you want to say that Goddidit, denying the BB doesn’t help. And it certainly doesn’t help to show ignorance about the BB. And to display ignorance about what the Bible says … words fail me!

  5. Michael Fugate

    In his book, Donald (like the true creationist he is) claims that a fruitfly is still a fruitfly no matter the number of mutations. Homeotic mutations can make a fly look pretty unflylike

  6. And Francis Collins fully accepts evolution. He uses ERV’s as good evidence for common descent. He did get a little wisy-washy with encode, though.