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 — at least a part-time preacher. It’s Gene Linzey, described at the end as: “a speaker, author and mentor.” We never encountered a mentor before, so we Googled around and found what appears to be his website. The About page says that he is: “a former bi-vocational pastor and music minister. He has served as president of the Siloam Springs Writers Guild in Siloam Springs, AR., and as chaplain for the USS Yorktown CV-5 Survivors Club.” He qualifies for full name treatment, and we’ll refer to him as the mentor. Here are some excerpts from his column, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
While I openly admit that my knowledge is limited, others who oppose my views get upset or frustrated if I declare their knowledge to be limited or based on faulty premises. Let’s look at a few ideas logically and scientifically. To start, faith is required to believe in what has not been proven. For example, I had faith that the chair would support me. I sat on it to test my theory. It is holding me, so faith is no longer required. Let’s continue.
Are you sitting in a chair, dear reader? Then you too acted on faith. The mentor’s column is very long, so we’ll have to skip a lot and be very selective in our excerpts. He says:
We cannot know what is incorrect or wrong unless we have a standard of what is correct to judge it against. To know what’s wrong, we must know what is right. Therefore, since we know it is evil to murder, we instinctively understand the intrinsic value of life. Since we know that lying is wrong, we instinctively understand the moral value of truth. The principle of right and wrong is imbedded [sic] in everyone’s conscience.
If right and wrong weren’t embedded in your conscience, then if someone kidnaps you, tortures you, rapes you, and threatens to kill you, you wouldn’t have any idea that you were being mistreated. After that truism, the mentor tells us:
How about the concept of truth? Some people emphatically declare that since everything is relative, there is no absolute truth. But is that statement correct? Is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? Think before you answer.
By now you’ve probably realized that the mentor is your intellectual superior, so you’re ready for what follows:
Some people affirm that Biblical Creation is not true [Gasp!], but then claim that the mythical and unprovable Big Bang created the well-organized cosmos with logical and scientific precision with no intellect or mind to guide anything. That’s absurd! [Yeah!] I don’t care how it’s explained, it is scientifically and physically impossible for matter to self-generate out of nothingness. The Big Bang hypothesis is science fiction, and is a way to get away from the concept that God created the heavens and the earth.
Creationists always say that about the big bang, and we always say that the theory doesn’t claim that the universe magically appeared ex nihilo. No one knows what existed before the great expansion of the universe. Anyway, the mentor continues:
I’ve never received an intelligent answer to my question: If evolution were true, how did rock particles turn into living organisms? [Brilliant question!] By the way, have you ever looked at a one-celled amoeba using a microscope? I have. Those critters are just as complex as the human anatomy. [Right!] And if you ever stop and think about it, there’s no intelligent rationale as to how amoebas evolved into other life-forms. In reality, evolution is not scientific. It’s a hypothesis, we call it a theory, and teach it as fact. But that’s not science. At best, it is science fiction based on faith.
Yup — evolution is “science fiction based on faith.” Let’s read on:
To believe billions of galaxies came into existence due to an explosion of absolutely nothing takes more faith than to believe our Creator — God — spoke the cosmos into being.
Okay. Here’s another excerpt:
In order for people (agnostics, atheists, higher critics, skeptics, non-believers) to persuade me that Biblical Creation is wrong, they should give me a viable alternative. But they can’t. … That’s why many who believed in (had faith in) evolution have gravitated toward the Intelligent Design concept. But they still have a problem: if there’s no God, who is the intelligent designer?
Ooooooooooooh! Who is the designer — blessed be he? The answer is right at the end of the mentor’s column:
Understanding that ALL concepts of creation are intrinsically religious, the only logical approach is Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God….” God is the designer of it all.
Wowie — the mentor has solved one of the greatest scientific mysteries of all time! Someone should tell the Discoveroids.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.