Creationist Wisdom #990: It’s So Logical

We have almost a thousand of these things in our collection, so now the exciting countdown to 1,000 begins. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Star Beacon of Ashtabula, Ohio. It’s titled God and evolution, and they have a comments feature.

Unless the writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. Today’s writer is a special case because we don’t have a clue. He doesn’t use his full name — only his first name, Vincent, followed by an initial. 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!

After 35 years of studying and researching evolution, I can honestly state that I can find NO evidence to support the theory of evolution.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This is gonna be a great letter! Then he says:

There are many misconceptions and misunderstandings I would like to clear up. [That’s great!] One big misunderstanding is that “Chimpanzee and Human DNA are 99% the same.” Many do not understand how they arrived at the 99%. The researchers only used a very small segment of the DNA strand and left out anything that they could not classify properly, dropping many thousands of “letters of code” for both the human and ape samples. Then they only compared what remained and declared 99% similarity on the little that was left.

Gasp! The evolutionists have been lying to us! After that, Vincent tells us:

Another misunderstanding is that “Humans retain 25% of DNA from trees.” Not really sure how that helps the case in favor of evolution. Humans and trees are not similar genetically and must produce different proteins.

Vincent ain’t no kin to no tree! He continues:

When we need a heart replacement, we don’t look to apes for one. Instead, we get hearts from pigs. When we do experiments on skin, we never use ape skin. Instead we use pig skin. [So Vincent is related to pigs?] Human and killer whale fetuses look exactly the same early on. Orca fetuses even have 5 fingers before they turn into fins. Killer whale brains are the same size as ours, maybe even a little larger. Apes are not. In my opinion [Hee hee!], this all proves that there is no direct singular relationship that humans share with any one species. Instead, we share a relationship with all life to one degree or another, especially with other mammals.

That was quite a paragraph. We’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to comment on the details. We’re moving on:

Many do not understand this but there are actually limits to the number of times a species can change.

Yes! Vincent is referring to the magic barrier that prevents evolution from going too far, in order to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” We spoke of it in the “Micro-yes, Macro-no” section of Common Creationist Claims Confuted.

Here’s another excerpt:

All life forms are protected by Natural Selection – selecting out bad traits. Natural selection is “Quality Control” for your body plan, and this would actually prevent anything like evolution from occurring in the first place.

He’s right — natural selection prevents evolution! Here’s more:

Now if you are someone who is looking for proof of God, you may want to do a search for St. Thomas Aquinas “5 Proofs for the Existence of God.” He is considered one of the great philosophers. St. Thomas Aquinas also introduced Christianity to the concept of “Reason.”

Vincent is referring to Thomas Aquinas’ Five Proofs of God. Each of those so-called proofs has problems, but it doesn’t matter. Creationists love Aquinas — see Thomas Aquinas Joins the Discovery Institute.

And now we come to the end:

God does not require Humans to prove his existence. It is faith based. That is the point. Just because science cannot prove the existence of the supernatural does not mean it can be dismissed. [Right!] A proper scientist would leave all options open and keep everything on the table. Otherwise, it becomes manipulation and politics.

That was a brilliant conclusion to a brilliant letter. Nice going, Vincent!

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

20 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #990: It’s So Logical

  1. I doubt many scientists would bother trying to “…prove the existence of the supernatural…” when there is no reason to suppose it exists.

  2. There have been scientific investigations of supernatural explanations. This goes back to the 18th century. In the early 20th century, this was sometimes called the “paranormal”. Eventually, just about everybody has lost interest.
    As far as creationism is concerned, it has turned out to lack any alternative, positive claims of explanations, so there is nothing there to be studied.

  3. “After 35 years of …..”
    Well, after more than 40 years of studying and researching the god question I can honestly state that I can find NO evidence to support theism. What’s more, I understand how comes.

    “God does not require Humans to prove his existence. It is faith based. That is the point.”
    Ah, that’s why Vincent refers to the five proofs of Thomas of Aquino.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Aquinas’ 5 ways – short version:
    I believe God exists, therefore God does exist.

  5. Maybe you could start another series: Dunning-Kruger victims.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    A smarter person would have had only one point. Taking a serious hit at evolution, then a attempt at a second punch via Aquinas makes him look like a dummy.

  7. “Creationists love Aquinas”, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing what Aquinas really thought, only what he dared to publish (and even from that, he was accused of heresy).

  8. chris schilling

    “After 35 years studying and researching evolution…”

    It took just one letter to undo all Vincent’s sterling efforts.

  9. “[S]cience cannot prove the existence of the supernatural”. Science is not designed to prove the supernatural. On the contrary, if science can explain a phenomenon supposed to be supernatural, then the observed phenomenon ceases to be supernatural.

  10. Well here’s a surprise, the hillbilly rag deleted the critical comments that had been posted, while leaving an incoherent tome from a religious loony. I suggest they be buried under an avalanche of deliberative destruction!

  11. Not much of a surprise. The newspaper obviously knows and respects Vincent, otherwise they wouldn’t let him write anonymously.

  12. Derek Freyberg

    “When we need a heart replacement, we don’t look to apes for one. Instead, we get hearts from pigs. When we do experiments on skin, we never use ape skin. Instead we use pig skin.”
    Did Vincent never stop to think that perhaps among the reasons we do this are: (1) much greater availability of pigs than apes, and (2) much less concern about pigs than apes.

    And even Thomas Aquinas himself admitted that his “proofs” are not real proofs of a kind that would satisfy someone who was not already a believer, rather they are designed to strengthen the faith of those who already believe – but I doubt Vincent read that bit.

  13. They deleted my comment. I added another one commenting on their idea of “freedom of the Press”. It’ll be interesting to see how long it survives.

  14. About heart transplants, there is a matter of size to be considered. And there is concern about disease. Pigs are carefully monitored for disease.

  15. Vincent:
    “After 35 years of studying and researching evolution, I can honestly state that I can find NO evidence to support the theory of evolution.”

    Gee, Vincent, you should have several doctorates by now after that much studying. We can presume you don’t, since you are writing letters to a rag like the Star Beacon of Ashtabula, Ohio — where they delete all comments contrary to what they want their readers to believe.

    Oh, and where did you do all that studying — Liberty College “University”? Or maybe Biola? Bob Jones, perhaps? Or are you 100% home “schooled”?

    By the way, your opening statement needs some editing:
    “After 35 years of studying and researching evolution, I can honestly state that I can find NO evidence to support the theory of evolution.”

    There. All fixed.

  16. The statement, “science can’t prove the existence of the supernatural”, is true in itself. The reason it can’t is that we cannot know everything that could be natural. Thus, we are never entitled to assume that any phenomenon is supernatural, no matter how otherwise inexplicable it might be. Nor can science disprove the existence of the supernatural, simply because that would require the demonstration of an absolute universal negative, which is intrinsically impossible. Therefore, science can have nothing to say on the question, either way, and it really doesn’t matter how interested researchers are in the question of whether the supernatural exists or not. I’m sure, pace abeastwood, that some are, but there’s no getting around that impasse.

    So the statement, “religious belief MUST be faith-based”, is true. Well, at least it’s true if God or gods are held to be the authors of supposedly supernatural events such as miracles. But is it exhaustive? Is faith a sufficient basis?

    Three counters occur to me: One, the world used to be full of effects that were accounted supernatural because the natural explanation was unknown. Paul appealed to that fact repeatedly. But it was far more true in his day than now. Natural explanations gradually became known. Rainbows and pestilence, floods and droughts, earthquake and seasons, elf-shot and dragon bones – all, and many, many more, were accounted supernatural, but turned out to be natural. Of course this is rather like Fermat’s Last Theorem. For centuries it couldn’t be proven, it just held for every case that was investigated. Still, a trend is a trend.

    Two: Occam’s Razor. To account for any phenomenon by claiming the supernatural is to add an assumption. Natural causation is not an assumption, for we know natural causation exists. To claim supernatural causation is to assume what we do not know exists. Hence, Occam’s Razor would favour natural causation for all.

    And three: Jesus of Nazareth, a philosopher for whom I have considerable respect. “You will know them by their fruits,” he said. What are the fruits of faith in the supernatural? There are some good ones, in some cases, true: courage, mercy, charity, decency, and some of the greatest art and architecture ever achieved. But there are a great many bad ones: intolerance, ignorance, superstition, persecution, injustice, fanaticism, schism, violence to those not of the faith. Those are evil fruits, and in my opinion they much outweigh the good. Have we not tasted them in our own time?

    So, me, I think it’s better not to have this faith that it is held to be essential. It’s unjustifiable on simply rational grounds, but also dangerous in itself. But as Vincent says, it’s essential to religion. So, no religion. No God or gods. I’ll have to do without. Yes, yes, I know. I sound like I don’t like it. Well, I don’t. Too bad. But that’s where I am, all the same.

  17. @DaveL wonders: “What are the fruits of faith in the supernatural?”
    At least a nearly infinite source of entertainment for this nice blog. That’s not to be scoffed at! But yes, it pales a bit when compared to the fruits of science last 250 years.

  18. So many have tried to just DEMONSTRATE the possibility of the paranormal & failed to do so, too many magicians showing how the “successes” were fraud!

  19. @TomS
    Heart size is one consideration, the other reasons for choosing pigs (over another primate for example) are:
    1) they are relatively easy to raise quickly and in large numbers,
    2) they are raised for slaughter so fewer ethical complaints and
    3) their phylogenetic distance from humans reduces likelihood of zoonotic disease transmission.

    And pig skin is chosen to practice suturing because of the lack of hair and comparable thickness. Otherwise there are significant differences, the lack of sweat glands for instance.

    These things are learned (or should be) within the first 2 years of medical school, so in addition to failing to talk to an evolutionary biologist, the 35 years of study clearly did not include talking to a competent medical doctor either.

  20. @L.Long
    I once attended a lecture by J.B.Rhine on his studies on the paranormal.
    One positive idea that I got was that he tried to distinguish between different kinds of paranormal effects. In other words, he tried to be a scientist. He didn’t just say that there was the paranormal which could account for just about anything. He was open to the idea that one effect was real, but another was not.
    This is different from “Intelligent Design” or omnipotence where anything at all can be equally a result.