Creationist Wisdom #999: Evolution Demolished

There’s only one more to go until we reach 1,000 of these things. Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of what seems to be the Daily Courier of Prescott, Arizona. It’s titled The Case for Creation Science, 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. He has the same name as the head of something called the Prescott Creation Society, but we can’t find their website so we’re not certain it’s the same guy. Anyway, the letter-writer’s first name is David. 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!

Creation science is a huge topic, drawing from the 200 branches of science, archeology, history, logic and the Bible. [Wowie, 200 branches of science!] This makes it inexhaustible, which makes it hard to know where to start. We’ll start this series of articles [A series!] on the basic laws of science which the story of evolution violates.

This is really exciting! David says:

Evolution theory has no answers and no evidence to support it. [Gasp!] The law of Biogenesis states that life can only come from preexisting life. Christianity or Intelligent Design (ID) has a preexisting cause – an all powerful God, but evolution theory does not.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! David begins with imaginary law of biogenesis, which we debunked in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. We’re off to a great start! After that he tells us:

The first law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Christianity & ID gets around this law by the intervention of an all-powerful God that made the natural laws and who is the creator of all matter, but evolution theory breaks this law. [Gasp! Evolution breaks the law!] The 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that heat and useable energy is dissipating, which causes everything to run down and fall apart (or die) over time. This law is why everything gets worse over time, but evolution theory states that everything gets better over time, even though this defies this law and everything that we observe. [Evolution breaks another law!]

Powerful stuff, huh? David continues:

The law of Cause and Effect [Huh?] states that every effect must have a cause that is equal to or greater than the effect. Evolution theory has no answer for what caused the universe, but Christianity and ID have the only possible answer that can account for the massive effect of the universe – an all-powerful God.

Wowie — evolution can’t explain what caused the universe! David’s letter is amazing! Let’s read on:

The law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when matter that is spinning explodes, all particles coming off the matter will spin in the same direction the exploding matter was spinning. When we look at the moons, we see many going in the opposite direction, planets and even galaxies going in the “wrong” direction. Evolution can not break this law, but an all powerful God can. You see that evolution theory violates these basic laws of known science and Christianity or ID do not.

We’re shocked — shocked! Evolution can’t explain Retrograde motion. Darwin was a fool! Another excerpt:

Lastly, evolution theory is not even science, because all empirical science must follow the scientific method, which consists of: 1) making an observation; 2) forming an hypothesis based on your observation; 3) performing experiments to try to prove your hypothesis correct; 4) having repeatable results. The only part of the scientific method that evolution theory does is making a hypothesis, and they have made plenty of these, which are changing all the time.

This is absolutely devastating! How could anyone be an evolutionist? Here’s our last excerpt:

So my question is, why are we teaching a faulty hypothesis in the public schools that goes against the known laws of science as if it were a fact? Why don’t we show the students any of the mountain of REAL scientific evidence that prove evolution theory to be wrong? When you teach faulty hypotheses as fact, this you are not educating students, you are brainwashing them! Our school districts are afraid to take on the system that promotes this lie, but I challenge them to do so. It is what’s best for our students, and the right thing to do. In future articles we will explore mountain of scientific evidence that mitigates [Mitigates?] against the story of evolution.

The final paragraphs of David’s letter promote local creationist events and a tour of the Grand Canyon. You can click over there to read that stuff if you like. We’re outta here!

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

19 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #999: Evolution Demolished

  1. Michael Fugate

    This guy seems to be tied to the Arizona Origins Science Association which is a low level hard-core old-school biblical creationist outfit. Every single one of the members has a list of degrees after their name as if that gives anything they say more weight.
    If you want to see the quality – read this one on the 2nd law by an aerospace engineer:
    https://www.azosa.com/some-comments-on-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-2/
    I am not sure if he doesn’t know what he is talking about or if this is a deliberate misstatement.

  2. Considering that everything he said is a bold faced lie, he may not admit it but that does not change it to some form of truth!

  3. My comment in the paper and on its FB page:

    “1) The origin of the Universe does not violate the 1st Law, because negative gravitational energy = positive mass energy; (2) evolution does not violate the 2nd Law, for the same reasons that a tree growing doesn’t; (3) retrograde spinning is well understood in terms of local interactions; there is no such thing as a “law of cause and effect”; (4) the origin of the Universe (and indeed of life) is not part of the subject matter of evolution science, which is about how life has *developed*; like chemistry isn’t about the origin of atoms but about how atoms behave; (5) if science is limited to repeatable experiments, then astronomy is not a science; and finally (6-15) evolution is supported by the fossil record, anatomical homologies, DNA evidence, the matching of DNA and fossil record clocks, biogeography, embryology, vestigial and repurposed organs, and frozen-in defects, inherited broken genes, and real time observation. I have omitted more complex technicalmatters, such as endogenous retroviruses.

    I hope this comment may mitigate the harm done by creationism, and militate against proudly paraded ignorance.”

    What have I missed?

  4. Stephen Kennedy

    This so called Law of Biogenisis is a fraud and claiming it to be true dishonors the name of a man who made important contributions to science. In his experiment, Louis Pasteur never claimed or tried to show that non-living proteins and organic molecules, over time and in the right conditions, would never organize into a self-replicating entity. His intention was to show that known living organisms like maggots and rodents appear to emerge from piles of trash because due to humans not noticing that other known organisms contaminate the unattended trash and bear their offspring there. He showed that if trash were isolated so that no insects or rodents could enter them, the piles of trash would not produce vermin. What Pasteur was demonstrating was the importance of hygiene and sanitation, not how life could have arisen on Earth.

  5. It’s hard to make me cringe, but David succeeded.

    “The first law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.”
    No, it doesn’t. Nuclear fission, when pseudo-commercially used, destroys matter but doesn’t violate this First Law.

    “Christianity & ID gets around this law by ….”
    Which means that the christian god breaks it.

    Our dear SC is baffled: “The law of Cause and Effect [Huh?]”
    I refer to your article about Mr. Egnorance and Thomas of Aquino’s Five Ways. This “law” one of the first three, simplified.

    “The law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum ….”
    Consult Wikipedia: “Conservation is not always a full explanation for the dynamics of a system but is a key constraint.”

    “Evolution can not break this law, but an all powerful God can. You see that evolution theory violates these basic laws of known science and Christianity or ID do not.”
    This is too stupid to make even me laugh. Let me simply repeat: an all powerful god can break scientific laws and christianity (that’s all about such a god) does not.
    Enough. I’ll leave the other blunders to others.
    But what i’d like to see is David answering the questions TomS likes to ask me. Or perhaps not, because I’m afraid that it will damage his mental health. Here’s my version of a well known Dutch proverb: one willfully ignorant guy like David can provide more stupid answers than ten reasonable guys like TomS can ask.
    David is a perfect example of our dear SC’s Laws: debating creacrappers is more stupid than creacrap itself.

  6. @Paul Braterman: My congratulations to you. I was going to make comments similar to some of the ones you made, but yours are more complete and eloquent. I was a biologist, and I get tired of ID people demonstrating their ignorance by saying that the theory of evolution doesn’t explain the origin of the universe. And the ignorance of science generally by claiming that theories are wrong because they are modified as we get more information about the world.

  7. Michael Fugate

    If life comes only from life, then is it correct to say there is only one living thing? What we would call the death of an individual is equivalent to the death of cell within a body or within a colony of prokaryotes?

  8. @MichaelF: “I am not sure if he doesn’t know what he is talking about or if this is a deliberate misstatement.”
    This time I think we can figure it out. Page 1 is accurate, except for some quibbles. It’s on page 2 that he gradually goes off the rails, eg

    “If the room was a closed system, i.e. nobody ever entered it, it would eventually become dusty and the materials in the room would eventually decay.”
    Eh, that dust means that the room is not a closed system …..
    This is a nice one too:

    “As one author put it “Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right.”
    The note mentions one Roger Caillois. His entry on Wikipedia tells us he was a literary criticist, sociologue and philosopher. Clearly the ultimate expert on thermodynamics and evolution theory!
    “As one author” only can be a deliberate attempt to mislead readers.

  9. @Paul Braterman
    Yes, and
    On the other hand
    He has no positive answer.
    For example, Design does not free one from obeying the laws of nature. Rather, design means to solve a problem by following the constraints imposed by the laws.
    Even if there were some puzzles about evolution, he doesn’t offer a solution to the puzzles. By his defintion of science, he can’t offer a scientific answer, because he can’t perform experiments with reproducible results.

  10. @ Paul Braterman – good job, BUT
    Creation science is “drawing from the 200 branches of science, archeology, history, logic and the Bible”.
    You haven’t addressed them all.

  11. Michael Fugate

    Notice how they try to slip teleology into the 2nd law – as if intelligence and purpose were needed to direct systems toward increasing order. Order doesn’t necessarily imply an intelligent orderer.

  12. @Michael Fugate
    It is worse than that.
    If they are claiming that it is a matter of the laws of nature, as if the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or some conservation law of “comples secified information” is violated in “increasing order”, such as the operaton of the world of life …
    The only intelligent designers that we know about, human engineers, architects, artists, etc., maybe nest-builders, web spinners, etc., whatever – they are coinstrained by the laws of nature. We can’t design, successfuly, a perpetual motion machine.
    An intelligent designer doesn’t help in making an “increase of order”, if that involves violaton s of laws of nature.

  13. Dave Luckett

    FrankB, your Danish proverb in Terry Pratchett’s formulation:

    “A lie can circle the Earth before truth can get its boots on.” The parade of flat lies that constitutes this letter is an example of the effect.

    But there is worse. “A lie is the living dead”.

    All the lies this idiot tells have been refuted, destroyed, devastated, exploded, many, many times over, but still they lurch at us out of the pages of the rural press and the creationist noise machine, grinning emptily, reaching for our brains. And, as his last sentence makes clear, the brains of children.

    How do you kill a lie? If it merely shambled, perhaps it were possible. But it is fleeter than quicksilver, and just as poisonous. It mutates faster than the cold virus, taking new and strange forms as we watch. How is it to be caught? How killed?

    I don’t know. An education is a useful tool, but it has to be a good one, and it must include actual science and, I submit, history; and it must instill a habit of reading and an understanding of research and reference. As we lamentably see, technical training, no matter how rigorous, does not suffice. Blogs like this are a valuable preventative, taken early.

    But once the mischief is done, there is rarely a cure. The writer of this letter has most of human knowledge literally at his fingertips. The utter refutation of his squalid collection of shonky untruths is readily available to anyone who looks. But here he is. Again. And there, again. And elsewhere, again and again and again, an endless game of whackamole against moles that move at the speed of light.

    I confess, sometimes I despair.

  14. @Paul Braterman

    You missed the altruistic opportunity to allow me to first mention “militate”.

  15. I see no comments at the Prescott. That ’cause I’m in Europe?

  16. Keep in mind that this creationist’s writings are quite successful and persuasive in the creationist world. They know little of science and a letter such as this which seems filled with enough scientific jargon to convince them that their beliefs are indeed true. They keep hearing this “fake” science message and it reinforces their minds of this nonsense because their god stories will always take precedence. We can criticize them, but that only steels their thought patterns against any rational explanations and evidence contradicting their views.

  17. Michael Fugate

    I sent a comment to the editor asking why as an editor there were no steps taken to verify anything in the article – especially as it is apparently a series. I haven’t received a reply yet. As far as I can tell McNabb runs a Scottish import business out of his house which I guess uniquely qualifies him to write on this topic.

  18. @Michael Fugate
    What are they going to verify? Is anyone at the paper qualified to do so? In times past papers sometimes had science columnists who might attempt to do so, but then again they might alienate that segment of their subscribers and the paper loses. LTTE is sometimes better as the paper then is not responsible for content, but now LTTE might not be an option, especially if the creationist viewpoint is in sync with the editor/owner.

  19. Michael Fugate

    If they don’t or can’t then they should cease operation…