Creationist Wisdom #997: Nobel Prize Blunder

This is a really bad one, but at least it’s brief — and there’s nothing else going on out there. Also, it brings our total a little closer to 1,000. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Lima News of Lima, Ohio. The letter is titled What science should know, and the newspaper has a comments section.

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 Charles. 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!

As to the Wednesday article on the front page of The Lima News concerning the three scientists trying to answer the question of “How did we get here, and are we alone?”

That wasn’t a complete sentence, but grammar isn’t Charles’ specialty. We found the article that upset him and motivated his letter. Here it is: Are we alone? Nobel Prize goes to 3 who tackled cosmic query. It’s an Associated Press story about this year’s Nobel Prize in physics, about which we wrote Nobel Prize in Physics — Creationists Lose Again.

Half the prize was awarded for finding the first extra-solar planet, and the other half for describing the development of the universe after the Big Bang. Charles apparently thinks it was all a big mistake. He says:

I could have saved them time and work as well as the Nobel Prize committee a lot of money by reminding them of what the first verse of the Bible says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.”

That’s it. That’s the whole letter. And when you think about it, Charles didn’t need to say anything else. We understand him perfectly. The only appropriate response is: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #997: Nobel Prize Blunder

  1. Not so disrespectful, dear SC – Charlie Not So Brown gave the perfect and ultimate answer to every scientific question.

    Concerning the scientists trying to answer the question of “How is gravity/ electricity etc. possible?”

    we can save them time and work by reminding them of what the first verse of the Bible says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.

  2. Just think if all such questions were to be resolved that way …
    How many people would have access to a Bible today?

  3. Michael Fugate

    How does a God who supposedly transcends time and space, creates a universe from nothing, and has all kinds of other amazing attributes, and yet comes up with a plan to save all of humankind that appears to have been conceived by a human who knew only what humans knew 2000 years ago – entirely limited by time and space?

  4. @Michael Fugate
    It takes a lot of careful planning to write something that has the appearance of being written in another time.
    In the case of the Bible, it really looks as if it was written in the Ancient Near East. Whoever wrote it wanted it to give that impression.

  5. chris schilling

    Gee, I wonder if any of his teachers ever felt compelled to write on one of Charles’ school reports:

    “Charles is a complete and utter a**hole, on whom it would be a waste of time and work, not to mention money, trying to educate any differently.”

    “He does, on the other hand, show a natural aptitude for Bible study.”

  6. Michael Fugate

    I am also curious how an individual claiming the Bible is completely true and God doesn’t lie, reconciles that with Jesus both being God and saying he will return in less than 25-50 years. It is now 2000+ years and no sign.

  7. Dave Luckett

    “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”

    Suppose that were correct. No, please don’t jump down my throat. Suppose it were. What difference would it make?

    It doesn’t say how it was done. Suppose God spoke, and it was so. We haven’t gotten up to days, yet. At Charles’s insistence, we are considering only the very first sentence in the Bible. Does it contain any meaning that can be directly denied by scientific evidence?

    I would submit that it does not. So Charles’s quotation is entirely irrelevant to the question of how the Universe – “the Heavens and the Earth” – was made.

    Ah, but later we get up to a statement that it was done in six successive days. “The Bible says it was a day,” as Matthew Brady informs the court. But, as Henry Drummond replies, “Does it mean twenty-four hour days?”, literal periods of time equal to the space between one sunrise and the next?

    But time is a human experience that does not apply to God. As Peter tells us, to God a day is as a thousand years. He might as well have said a million, or a billion. Or any number. Could the expression “day”, when the reality is many orders of magnitude greater, simply be an expression of the eternity and timelessness of God? You think not? How do you know that?

    Charles knows what he knows. Perhaps I should say, he thinks he knows what he thinks he knows. Me, I know I don’t know.

  8. Well, I know that (again!) I don’t care. The correct interpretation of the Bible is not my problem.