Creationist Wisdom #1,006: It’s Overwhelming

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — it’s actually a column — appears in the Albany Herald of Albany, Georgia. It’s titled Evidence of God’s existence overwhelming . The newspaper has a comments feature, but there aren’t any comments yet.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today we’ve got a preacher. It’s Charles Harris of the Beattie Road Church of Christ. Here are some excerpts from the rev’s column, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Okay, here we go:

Is there a God? That is a question that must be answered. But it cannot be answered based upon personal opinions or feelings on the matter, for that is completely subjective (and thus, in the end, unreliable). Obviously, not everyone believes in God. But what does the evidence show? Would it surprise you to know that the evidence for the existence of God is absolutely overwhelming? Consider it for yourself.

The rev is going to give you evidence that is “absolutely overwhelming,” so proceed at your own risk, dear reader. He says:

First, consider the “Law of Cause and Effect.” [He’s talking about his own version of Causality.] Basically, this law states that “every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.” If you found your house crumbled to the ground, you could not blame it on the mosquito that you found flying over the debris. That would not be an adequate cause. Something quite substantial would have to cause that to happen. Would that also be true of our universe?

The rev answers that question:

Do you know that there are more than 100 billion galaxies in our universe and each galaxy (like our Milky Way) has more than 100 billion stars in it? Would a tiny ball of matter smaller than a proton be able to “Bang” big enough to adequately cause this massive, material universe that we cannot even completely see, let alone explore? No, that would not be an adequate cause. [The rev is so wise!] There must have been an original cause substantial enough to bring about the effect that is here.

Impressive, huh? And he’s just getting started. Next the rev tells us:

Second, consider the “Law of Biogenesis.” [Hee hee!] Basically, this law states that “life in the material universe comes from previous life of its own kind.” [Of it’s own kind!] This has been proven over and over, and science itself has shown that life never arises except from life. It is evident that life is now here. (You are evidence that life is now here.) Where did it come from? It could not have come from non-life. (That’s what the Law of Biogenesis proves.) Therefore, the origin of life on earth points back to an original life-giver. Who (not what) could that be?

We discussed that clunker in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. The rev continues:

Third, consider the “Law of Rationality.” [The what?] Basically, this law states that “one must only draw and accept conclusions that are warranted by clear evidence.” Specifically, think about the matter of design.

Groan. Here it comes:

If there is design, that demands the conclusion that there is a designer. A watch demands a watchmaker. [Ooooooooooooh!] A painting demands a painter. The design that is evident in the earth, the universe and the human body is millions of times more complex than a watch or a painting. What conclusion does that evidence warrant? What is the rational explanation? Doesn’t that design also demand a designer? [Yes!] It is not rational to state that the intricate design around us is not by design.

Someone should tell the Discoveroids that they’ve been missing out on one of the great laws of nature to prove their version of creationism. Let’s read on:

There is no other explanation for the substantial amount of evidence than this conclusion: There is a God. This is not merely an opinion.

Got that? It’s not just the rev’s opinion we’re talking about here. And now we come to the end:

The laws of science substantiate that a random event involving an explosion of non-living material is not a rational explanation for this universe or life we possess. In the coming weeks, we’ll see that the God that exists is the God of the Bible.

Okay, dear reader. If you’re not persuaded by that, then there’s no hope for you. Enjoy your eternity in the Lake of Fire.

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 #1,006: It’s Overwhelming

  1. Derek Freyberg

    Our SC says:
    “Okay, dear reader. If you’re not persuaded by that, then there’s no hope for you. Enjoy your eternity in the Lake of Fire.”
    My immediate thought is like that of the dog Grimm, in one of the Mother Goose and Grimm cartoons, standing next to a phone pole with a sign on it saying “Wet Paint”, and with a wicked smile saying “I think I will”.
    But I’m comfortable that there is no eternity.

  2. Give the rev some credit. He came up with the Law of Rationality: “One must only draw and accept conclusions that are warranted by clear evidence.”
    Let’s hope he remembers it in his Bible studies.

  3. “…Would a tiny ball of matter smaller than a proton be able to “Bang” big enough to …” OK he admits he is st00pid about how the universe works, so by inference he don’t know much about much of anything.

  4. “every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.”
    All physicists all over the world eagerly await Rev. Charlie’s identification of the cause of electron-positron pair production.

    “Would a tiny ball of matter smaller than a proton be able to “Bang” big enough.”
    I have to admit it – Rev. Charlie has surprised me. There are quite a few apologists who say yes and identify Rev. Charlie’s god as the cause of this Bang.

    “If there is design, …..”
    And yet another one falls for Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy.
    We have independent evidence for painters, watchmakers, designers of websites. We have evidence for the tools they use and the procedures they follow. Rev. Charlie’s Designer however not so much.

    “The laws of science substantiate that …..”
    OK, folks, what have we learned today? Neither General Relativity (which makes us conclude that Bang) nor Quantum Mechanics are science.

  5. “every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.”
    Why the restriction to “material” effects? Let me guess – because he realizes that if he says that about every effect, he will find himself in deep trouble: God depending on a pre-existing cause. That is, in tecnical terms, the restriction is ad hoc. He has no reason for it, other than he needs it to get to the desired conclusion.

  6. Laurette McGovern

    To answer his question, Yes, it would surprise me. A lot

  7. The Rev asks; “Would a tiny ball of matter smaller than a proton be able to “Bang” big enough to adequately cause this massive, material universe that we cannot even completely see, let alone explore?”

    And then answers his own question, with a “No”, of course. Fortunately, the singularity was not “a tiny ball of matter”, so both the question and the answer are false.

    But there’s a further level of falsehood on show. Suppose the Rev were completely ignorant of the processes of human reproduction. Would he not say exactly the same thing about the production of a human infant? It is idle to believe that so complex an entity could be produced from two fragments of protoplasm too small to see. How could anybody imagine such a thing?

    In other words, the Rev is trying to admit the failures of his imagination as evidence. One can’t believe that; therefore one should believe that babies are brought by storks and hidden under cabbage leaves. That’s what he’s arguing. It’s as stupid as that.

  8. @Dave Lucett
    Precisely so.
    And we do not need to speculate, for history has performed the test for us. In the 18th century, nobody had any idea about the way that new organisms appeared. Serious, well informed, intelligent students of natural history could deny the possibility of reproduction. And they came up with the arguments to defend their position that today’s anti-evolutionists are repeating.
    These anti-reproduction thinkers were different, though. I’m not a Whig historian:
    They had an alternative theory. They worked on their theory and evidence. Nobody else had any ideas about “where babies come from”. Their arguments against reproduction were original, and relevant and it took a took a hundred years to discover the answers.
    “Intelligent Storkism” is not just a jibe.