Creationist Wisdom #1,022: You Must Believe

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — or column, or whatever it is — appears in The Albia Newspapers (yes, that’s their name) of Albia, Iowa (population 3,766). The title is Why everyone should believe in God, and the newspaper has no comments feature.

As you know, unless the writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. In this case, we don’t have a clue who the writer is. The newspaper has his picture, but his name doesn’t appear anywhere. Excerpts from the mystery man’s 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 we move into the New Year, I was pondering what I wanted to share with you today. And as I did, I realized maybe that a good thing to share was something that is so appropriate for the beginning of the year. I want to share with you a few reasons everyone should believe in God.

Ooooooooooooh! The mystery man is going to tell you why you should believe. He says:

The Bible says right away in Genesis, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Notice it does not try to convince anyone the there is a God. Most people in those days believed in a God of some sort. But in our world today we have those, often wayward intellectuals [like you, dear reader?], who like to profess to be an agnostic or a flat out atheist. Bottom line is, there is a God.

That’s the bottom line. Skipping a few paragraphs, the mystery man tells us:

More and more scientists since the rise of something called quantum physics now believe without question that the order of things in our universe depend on a creator. More and more astronomers, unlike the late Carl Sagan, now believe God exists. Science rather than discrediting God now point more and more to Him.

No doubt about it, that’s how things are going. The man with no name continues:

Today, over 90 percent of astronomers believe in God. [Wow!] They realized that if the earth were tilted just a little more or if the moon was a little closer or farther away, or if the earth were only 10 percent bigger or smaller, no life could exist here. That is not by coincidence. The mixture of nitrogen and oxygen is just perfect for life here. The existence of the ozone layer that has so long protected us from the sun is just right. Over and over we see that no evolutionary process did this, God did this.

Good, huh? Let’s read on:

Biologically, how is it a blind animal that crawled out of some made up bog in the beginning of time suddenly become a creature of sight? Or how could our life which is based on blood that flows in us be created from bone marrow and then magically give up its nucleus when it reaches our bloodstream? Any other cell would die doing that. No other cell can do that. The entire design of a red blood cell is unique so it can carry oxygen to our body.

You’re already convinced — who wouldn’t be? — but we’ll continue anyway. Here’s another excerpt:

And then there is the human eye? The human eye is a masterpiece that combines so many things and processes that work together that there is no way a random evolutionary process that originated in a sightless creature could develop it. [Yeah!] Even the human brain which typically weighs under four pounds is a miracle as it performs about 500 tons of what electrical and electronic equipment cannot do and contains 15 billion neurons that make thought process possible. Coincidence? The atheist would have you think so.

There are several more paragraphs in the mystery man’s letter — or column — but you’ve seen enough. Now you should sit back and reflect on your foolish Darwinist past. It’s not too late to accept The Truth.

Copyright © 2020. 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

25 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,022: You Must Believe

  1. Michael Fugate

    A United Methodist pastor in Moravia Iowa
    https://www.iaumc.org/churchdetail/462108

  2. Laurette McGovern

    Oh, God! (sorry)

    But a question I have always had is, How do I make myself believe in god? If i were to ask the writer to make himself believe in the Easter Bunny, could he? Of course not–that’s ridiculous. But making myself accept a supernatural deity is just a ridiculous for me.

    It’s not simply a matter of choice. Rather, weigh the evidence (of lack of same), and see where your mind ends up.

  3. Well, man with no name, I thank the star that died to make the iron in my haemoglobin. But I have no need for the god hypothesis. (And by the way, the dialog in the Clint Eastwood movie was better!)

  4. Every now and then our dear SC stumbles across an article which we think cannot be beaten in stupidity. Every time we get it wrong.

  5. @Laurette McGovern: My thoughts, exactly.

  6. Fine, 90% of astronomers believe in God. But do they believe the world was created 4K years ago?

  7. They realized that if the earth were tilted just a little more or if the moon was a little closer or farther away, or if the earth were only 10 percent bigger or smaller, no life could exist here. That is not by coincidence.
    “Research” from the DI, the ICR, Ham’s AIG?

  8. Should we not celebrate the fact that he talks about the eye without half-quoting Darwin?

    And of course, the mixture of oxygen and nitrogen is very far from ideal for most lifeforms, however convenient it may be for us eukaryotes. And I think everybody here will know that the ozone layer only arose after a buildup of oxygen in an atmosphere that was essentially anoxic until a couple of billion years ago. Or do I mean half a billion years ago? How much oxygen do you need in the atmosphere to produce ozone layer?

  9. Michael Fugate

    A Pew survey from 10 years ago – report only 29% of Physicists/Astronomers believing in God.
    https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

  10. H.K. Fauskanger

    Creationist wisdom: “Biologically, how is it a blind animal that crawled out of some made up bog in the beginning of time suddenly become a creature of sight?”

    It reminds me of an “argument” in an old Jehovah’s Witness anti-evolution book, 1967’s “Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation?” The Witnesses argued that eyes could never evolve because an originally sightless organism couldn’t know what sight is, or that it should want to see!

    Their idea of evolution was apparently that it is some kind of deliberate self-improvement, organisms trying to squeeze out (for instance) new sense organs because they have a mysterious hunch that such may somehow be useful.

    I guess many creationists are quite right to reject as foolish and impossible THEIR misunderstood concepts of what evolutionary science is about.

  11. “Or how could our life which is based on blood that flows in us be created from bone marrow and then magically give up its nucleus when it reaches our bloodstream? Any other cell would die doing that.”

    Erythrocytes are short-living cells. Moreover, they are non-nucleated in adult red cells (of all mammals) but they are nucleated during embryonic and fetal stages of development. In most vertebrates, they are nucleated and do, properly, the same job than in human. So much for the “unique” feature.

    But this is a red herring because the real problem is: why do we have to breath? Your Designer could not tinker something better? (Just as he has to put the cables in front of the sensor in the retina; a stupid thing that no human engineer would do.) The Fall changed the human anatomy and physiology? Where you there?

    ——-
    [Paul B.:] “Should we not celebrate the fact that he talks about the eye without half-quoting Darwin?”

    You must think about:
    “It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
    😉

  12. Michael Fugate

    Bigotry and science can have no communication with each other, for science begins where bigotry and absolute certainty end. The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof. Let us never forget that tyranny most often springs from a fanatical faith in the absoluteness of one’s beliefs.
    Montagu, Ashley (1984). Science and Creationism. Oxford University Press. p. 9.

  13. chris schilling

    “…everyone should believe in God.”

    Why? So we can validate mystery man’s fantasies of a father-and-saviour figure, and make him feel better about himself?

    Mystery man needs us. We don’t need him.

  14. Perhaps the “author with no name” might want to BUY. A. SCIENCE. BOOK.
    Just thinking out loud here.

  15. I’m a decently long time lurker. Curmudgeon, I have absolutely no idea how you’ve managed to read 1022 of these.

  16. Stephen Kennedy

    @ Bug
    The Curmudgeon has not only read 1022 of these brainless rants but even makes an effort to understand what the fools are trying to say and then takes the time to comment on them.

  17. Dave Luckett

    SC does not descend into the latter part of the column, but the Pastor reaches Pascal’s Wager, towards the end. Not that he acknowledges his source. Possibly he doesn’t even know it.

    It’s remarkably one-eyed, apparently out of sheer ignorance. I used to have the idea that the clergy of regular Protestant denominations – not the whoopdie-doo Holy Rolling Brother Hubbacucks of the ecstatic fringe, but of respectable groups like the Methodists – had some sort of training in theology, metaphysics, logical debate, rhetoric. That they could understand the major lines of thought that oppose the idea that faith is a virtue, or that the Bible is authoritative. But no. I gave that idea up decades ago, on meeting clergymen like this. He simply assumes both, completely blind to the possibility that anybody could think different. As if quoting scripture were a lay-down slam that must scotch the scoffer, because Bible, doncherknow?

    It’s one thing to believe without evidence. That’s bad. It’s worse to have no clue about what evidence is – as he doesn’t. But far worse still is to assume that there is no coherent opposing argument: that agnostics and atheists have no thoughts of their own, and that their entire worldview consists only of an emotional rejection of God, because they like to sin. No, worse: that there is no other possible explanation for them; no, even worse than that, that there is no point in even considering the possibility that there might be. There we reach the nadir.

    We can’t even begin to talk to people like this. The assumption they make is not only that opposition is wrong, but that it is as intellectually illegitimate as it is morally depraved. And they hold to that assumption not because they reject evidence to the contrary, but because they have never considered the possibility that there is any, nor could see it even if they were to look, which they never will.

    It’s not that he thinks that four hundred years of gradually growing agnostic thought is wrong; it’s not even that he thinks that it doesn’t exist. It’s not even that he thinks it couldn’t exist. It’s that he thinks nothing, because it’s impossible for him to think about it at all.

    I suppose I grow exercised about this because it’s akin to becoming invisible, inaudible, insubstantial. As if I didn’t exist at all. I begin – only begin, mind you – to have some empathy for other groups subjected to the same treatment, and to resolve not to do the same to them.

    I suppose one who was seeking a theodicy would point out that there is no such thing as a completely evil deed – that even malevolent ignorance and prejudice on the scale of the Pastor’s can produce some good – empathy for others. Maybe so. It’s worth thinking about.

  18. Off-topic for this thread, but not for this blog: a different force to believe in!

    Tortoise with species-saving sex drive returns to Galápagos

  19. Bug says: “Curmudgeon, I have absolutely no idea how you’ve managed to read 1022 of these.”

    I’ve read more than 1,022. A lot more. The ones that I don’t use for the blog are so incoherent that they’re not even entertaining.

  20. @ Our Curmudgeon: It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

    We are grateful you do so on our behalf.

  21. Anyone who thinks the human body is a awesome evidence of creation isn’t paying attention to the crap that we all deal with on a daily bases. Based on my personal experience your gawd is an incompetent psychotic fool.

  22. @Mega is generous today:

    “We are grateful you do so on our behalf.”
    I completely concur.
    What’s more, the comical aspect raises the quality of my life almost every day.

  23. @L.Long, the word “crap” is well chosen

  24. SC, I’m grateful not only to you but to the other people who comment here, and paradoxically to some of the people you quote, especially the DI, for drawing my attention to interesting stuff that I would otherwise have missed, and leaving me better informed about creationist arguments and deliberate misunderstandings, so that I can avoid feeding into these in my own writing