Creationist Wisdom #991: Unlimited Idiocy

The exciting countdown to 1,000 continues, and once again we find our entertainment in Brainerd Dispatch of Brainerd, Minnesota. Today’s letter-to-the-editor is titled Consider Darwin’s message, and the newspaper doesn’t have a comments feature.

It’s yet another reaction to the news we mentioned a couple of weeks ago in Drooling School Board Chairwoman. That was about Sue Kern, chairwoman of the school board of Brainerd, Minnesota, who couldn’t figure out why the schools were teaching evolution.

The last time one of Susie’s admirers inspired one of our posts was #989: Evolution Is Heresy, and before that there was #988: The Seminarian. Now we have another one.

Because the letter 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 Bruce. 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!

Concerning the faith in the Bible or Evolution conversation. [Yeah, “faith” in evolution.] Have you ever considered the title of Darwin’s book [Groan, not that again!], the force behind a concept yet to been [sic] seen, understood or proven? Also, there is no empirical data to support it, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Go ahead, dear reader. If you have time to waste, spend some of it correcting Bruce — but don’t expect any results. Here’s what he says about Darwin’s title:

The title of the book is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Don’t you find it interesting that what Darwin was actually trying to prove or develop is clearly stated in the title of his book and how it has been used by people such as Margaret Sanger and Hitler.

Aaaargh!! As we said in Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, that book’s title is often the only thing by Darwin the creationists ever read, and they mindlessly misinterpret it. Darwin, like his contemporaries, uses the terms “race,” “sub-species,” “variety,” and similar expressions interchangeably in connection with a great number of animals (dogs, horses, etc.) and also plants (flowers, cabbages, etc.), sometimes intermixing them in the same context. Aside from that, Origin of Species doesn’t even talk about the evolution of humans.

But Bruce has only begun to display his ignorance. Next he tells us:

So why am I bringing this up after some well stated letters to the editor this week? 1. The science of evolution is incredibly flawed [Hee hee!] and based on supposition and wishful thinking, once again, name any empirical data to support it. 2. When you study it from a different angle, such as from history, you learn a lot more about it and its incredible harm that it has done to mankind.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Evolution has no supporting data, and it’s done incredible harm. Bruce is a genius! His letter continues:

Margaret Sanger was a leading advocate of the eugenics movement, specifically of negative eugenics, which promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with undesired traits or economic conditions.

Yeah, yeah — eugenics. That clunker is also debunked in Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. What else does Bruce have for us? Oh, wait! To support his eugenics smear, he links to something at the Discoveroids’ blog. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’re omitting that link, of course.

Now we’ve arrived at Bruce’s final paragraph. And — surprise! — it presents yet another creationist clunker:

What is the tie-in between Darwin and Adolph Hitler? Here are a couple of suggested readings for you. [Links omitted.]

In case anyone out there isn’t clear on the “Darwin-Hitler” smear, our most recent post on it was Hitler, Darwin, and Churchill — One More Time, and it links to a few others.

So there you have it, dear reader. One drooling school board member makes complete a fool of herself, and now we’re getting a whole series of letters to write about. Thank you, Susie Kern!

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

7 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #991: Unlimited Idiocy

  1. Bruce is asking us to provide empirical evidence supporting evolution.

    Ok, I’ll bite. DNA.

    Now, Bruce, it’s your turn. Cite some empirical evidence supporting Biblical creation.

  2. Richard Andersen

    I find it interesting that the author equates Margaret Sanger and Hitler. Wow! That requires some strange thinking.

  3. Michael Fugate

    This is better linked here:

    which discusses the papers in Zygon March 2109 here:

    Maybe it really is about othering people in an essentialist manner.

  4. “that book’s title is often the only thing by Darwin the creationists ever read”
    Which is still more than they’ve read than written by Hitler. Hence it’s always entertaining to confront them with

    “iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.”

    “This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed … prevails throughout the whole of the natural world … The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”

    Bruce tries to challenge us: “name any empirical data to support it”
    Fossil record, mutations, speciation.
    You’re welcome, Bruce.
    Of course I “don’t expect any results”, except for Bruce’ answer being even more antiscientific.

  5. @Rsg tries to get a revenge: “Cite some empirical evidence supporting Biblical creation.”
    Come on, you know what Bruce will answer: design, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, fine-tuning, blablabla.

  6. It isn’t a matter of what is the evidence for an alternative for evolution.
    The big problem is what is such a thing?
    What happens so that there is the variety of life, if it doesn’t involve descent with modification?
    See the 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer
    The Development Hyothesis
    “Should the believers in special creations consider it unfair thus to call upon them to describe how special creations take place, I reply that this is far less than they demand from the supporters of the Development Hypothesis. They are merely asked to point out a conceivable mode. On the other hand, they ask, not simply for a conceivable mode, but for the actual mode.”

  7. “Bruce” would do well to pull himself together before arguing about anything. His semi-literate rant is about two steps and a tomato away from word salad. And of course, like most creationists he babbles that there’s no evidence whatever for evolution–which as I’ve written elsewhere invites the question of how the theory has managed to survive and prosper. (Cut perhaps it’s all a plot by the “deep state.”)