Creationist Wisdom #998: Minnesota Drooler

We’re almost at number 1,000 — isn’t that exciting? Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of what seems to be a newspaper but we can’t figure out their name. They’re located in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. The letter is titled Creation vs. evolution matters, 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. We think he’s in the plumbing business, but that doesn’t qualify for full name treatment. His first name is Gene. 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!

One of the many of the damaging results of our public education system all the way from elementary to college is the teaching of evolution. [Oh yeah!] Most aspects of evolution are being presented as facts, not theory. Both creation and evolution cannot be proven in a traditional lab and no one was around in the beginning (except God).

Wowie — the “facts” of evolution can’t be proven. Our teachers lied to us! Gene says:

Both a creationist and an evolutionist look at the same evidence, past and present. The creationist comes from a biblical recorded view [That’s wonderful!] while the evolutionist comes from a human secular view with an assumed starting point. [That’s worthless!]

Gene really knows what he’s talking about. Then he tells us:

Genesis lists genealogies with the number of years of living and births of the next generation. You just have to add them up. The birth of Christ occurred 2019 years ago, so with this information one can easily come to the present age of the universe to be around 6,000 years, not 13 billion to 16 billion years.

Wowie — it’s so easy to learn The Truth! Gene continues:

Go to the Answers in Genesis website for information on a young earth. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] The goal of evolution is to get God out of our culture. [Gasp!] Evolutionists say science supports evolution and God is about religion. The truth is God created science.

There’s a lot to think about here. Let’s read on:

Many say that this issue is unimportant. Yet we all wonder what causes all the mass shootings. [Yeah, what’s the cause?] Ask this question: What young man would be more likely to commit one of these crimes, a man that has been taught by our culture that it was an accident he was born, just a fluke of life that “evolved out of some swamp” and at the end his life he simply dies and rots away, or a very intentional creation of a loving and just God for a purpose here on earth and an opportunity for eternal life in heaven.

Wowie — now we know the cause of mass shootings — it’s Darwin! Here’s another excerpt:

At the very least the education system should present both creation and evolution since they are both theories.

Yeah! Creationism is just as good a theory as evolution, so why teach only one? And now we come to the end:

I encourage parents to review this issue and contact those who are elected to the school board and government representatives.

Good advice! Let those politicians hear from you, dear reader. Great letter, Gene!

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

10 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #998: Minnesota Drooler

  1. “The birth of Christ occurred 2,019 years ago”–except that it didn’t. The Bible says Herod ordered a slaughter of the male infants of Judea, but he died in what the Gregorian calendar counts as 4 B.C.

    So much for easily calculating the age of the universe from Scripture.

  2. chris schilling

    Genesis is too vague. It should have opened with:

    “In the beginning, no-one was around (except Me).”

    God should have gone all Hunter S. Thompson, and thrown Himself into the narrative, gonzo-style.

  3. Possibly there are people who have been raised to believe that their life, and all human life, is worthless. That is, they are psychopaths and sociopaths caused by upbringing and “nurture”. Such people might be mass shooters.

    But while “nurture” is possibly a path to psychopathy or sociopathy, understanding a scientific theory is not. No, if such traits can be instilled at all, it is by actual experience of indifference, coldness, and meaningless, random, inconsequential cruelty.

    Or perhaps psychopathy or sociopathy are not instilled at all; they are congenital mental defects, dysfunctions caused by means too subtle for our current understanding of the human mind. Or perhaps it’s a bit of both, “nature” and “nurture”. Or perhaps it has nothing to do with either. Perhaps it has little to do with psychopathy or sociopathy at all. In fact, it seems some mass shooters act because they know that what they are doing is an enormity. An enormity what they want to do.

    But mass shooters do not act because they have studied or understood the theory of evolution. Some of them left manifestos or declarations. Some were examined by psychiatrists and psychologists. There is almost never a rational cause at all – many can give no cause. Most often we see a seething stew of experiential helplessness, envy, jealousy, purposeless and directionless rage and despair. But never has the theory of evolution been cited as causing their acts.

    But there is another category of shooters who are undeniably motivated by religion. That is, while the theory of evolution cannot in truth be held responsible for any mass shooting, religious belief is certainly responsible for some of them.

    That is, Gene is desperately trying to pull a left-hand glove onto a right hand foot. It simply doesn’t fit. It fits somewhere else entirely. Somewhere he doesn’t want to go.

  4. “Most aspects of evolution are being presented as facts, not theory.”
    Dear Gene Genie, the situation is actually worse. Because gravity and electricity are being presented as facts as well, while they’re also just theories! And they don’t talk about your god either!

  5. @EricL: The Herodes that’s mentioned in the Bible isn’t necessarily Herodes the Great (though it’s very likely, I admit). Worse, the NT doesn’t tell us in which year Jesus was born, if only because the Julian and Gregorian calendars were only invented a few centuries later. Worse Jesus wasn’t born in the year 0, because the authors of the Gospels didn’t know that number yet. Worse, if we take the NT as literally as Gene Genie interprets Genesis we must conclude that Jesus was not born 1 BCE or 1 CE either, because in those years there were no celestial events that match the Mattheus 2:2.
    Of course none of this will trouble Gene Genie.

  6. Dave Luckett says: “But mass shooters do not act because they have studied or understood the theory of evolution.”

    If studying evolution caused such behavior — even a little bit — then biologists and teachers of biology would be among the most violent and depraved people in the population. And Darwin should have been running around like a wild man. But I’m not aware of any criminal biologists. If there were even one, creationists would never stop talking about it.

  7. Dear SC, you better don’t give creacrappers any smart ideas. No doubt there were some nazi-biologists in Germany between 1933 and 1945.

  8. The Nazi medical researchers are noted for discovering the link between cigarettes and cancer.
    While Hitler and Mussolini were not smokers, Stalin (pipe), Churchill (cigar) and Roosevelt (cigarette in holder) were habitual smokers – their images as smokers were famous.

  9. Sorry, Gene, the egg and sperm that made you were random combinations of genes. Your kids are also random combinations.

  10. @scientist
    In agreeent, I have found it clarifying to think about reproduction. How much do the creationist arguments against evolution apply to arguments against reproduction?
    The arguments against Irreducible Complexity, for example were actually, seriously, advanced in the 18th century as arguments against reproduction.