Creationist Wisdom #1,029: Double Drool

Today we have two letters-to-the-editor on the same subject in the same newspaper. They both appear in the Concord Monitor of Concord, the state capital of New Hampshire. Both letters are responding to Evolution Is a Fact. The newspaper has no comments feature.

The first letter is titled Evolution isn’t a fact. It was written by Harvey, whose earlier letter in that same newspaper was the subject of #1,025: School Prayer Is Legal. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In the Jan. 29 Monitor, there is an interesting and bold assertion (in response to my Jan. 22 letter). [That’s the one we wrote about.] The gentleman from Meredith says that “evolution is a fact.” [Gasp!]

Harvey is outraged. He says:

Wow! Has he the evidence? Does anyone? Where and when has it ever been scientifically demonstrated where one species became another?

At the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims, Harvey should check out an ark-load of information starting with macroevolution has never been observed. He continues:

I do not believe that it has ever been done. As far as I know [Hee hee!], there can indeed be modifications in an organism. But after many thousands of years, a fox is still a fox and a dog is still a dog. An ape is still an ape and a man is still a man. Beyond that all is theory and speculation, including many unproven assumptions.

He might have added: “The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.” But maybe he never saw Casablanca. Anyway, that’s all Harvey has to say.

The second letter is titled Evolution is a theory. Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Joseph. He’s a real estate broker, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. 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!

In a Jan. 29 letter there was a claim made that Darwin’s theory is fact. Not only is it a theory, it is a theory debunked by science. [Wow!] In the book Darwin’s Black Box, Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Leigh University, explains in the book that science has proven that there is an “intelligent designer” who created man.

Behe? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But Joseph is a big Behe fan. He says:

Behe writes about the discovery of the structure of the human cell. Science has proven that the cell is a complex irreducible system that cannot have evolved. Darwin himself, in his On the Origin of Species, said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Egad! Darwin’s own words used against him. Evolution is doomed! Or is it? When we find those words in Chapter 6 of Darwin’s book, we see that they are immediately followed by: “But I can find out no such case. … We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.”

Anyway, Joseph then tells us:

The discovery of the structure of the cell happened many years after the death of Darwin. The cell operates like a computer with a hard drive and files called proteins. [Wow!] The tragedy is that the public school system does not teach the intelligent designer theory alongside of evolution.

A tragedy indeed. And here’s how Joseph concludes his brilliant letter:

With this scientific knowledge, students can decide whether they evolved from an ape or they were created by an intelligent designer with dignity and value.

Very impressive. It’s good to see that everything’s up-to-date in Concord.

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

4 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,029: Double Drool

  1. Laurette McGovern

    OK, a critter thousands of years from now may still be called a “fox,” because that is what we would call a foxlike creature. But, after going through countless generations, and modifications each time, would that fox of the future still be capable of successfully breeding with the fox of today? If not, it would have to be described as another species. Whether we would use the colloquial name of “fox” again is besides the point.

  2. Everyone knows that dogs are descended from wolves.
    As far as foxes, there are many different species, and several different genera.
    And apes? There are genera in the family of great apes and in the family of lesser apes.
    Many prominent Old Earth Creationists insist on common descent of species within a “kind”, something like a family.

  3. Joseph would be shocked if he heard that his hero Behe believes that all living things share a common ancester.

  4. chris schilling

    Get a bucket and mop — somebody’s drooled all over the internet.

    Harvey flexes his puny thought processes: “Where and when…one species became another?” He’s still an amateur: he thinks speciation is an event, not a process (The day Harvey learnt to tie his shoelaces: THAT was an event).

    Then Joseph’s Brain-of-Not-Many-Colours gives us some matchless insights into modern-day tragedies like the public school system — where not all theories are equal, apparently — and boo-hoo-hoo, life’s not fair.

    It’s a dubious testament to the “intelligent designer theory” [sic], that it should manage to influence so many silly people like Joseph.