Creationist Wisdom #1,034: We Want The Truth™

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Altoona Mirror of Altoona, Pennsylvania. It’s titled ‘Truth of God’s Word’ deserves more space, and they have a comments feature.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name. Her first name is Christine. Excerpts from her 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 a daily reader of the Mirror, I truly appreciate the meditation Bible verse. So many times, it is exactly what I need for my situation.

Isn’t that wonderful? The newspaper’s bible verse is often just what Christine needs. Nevertheless, she’s not happy, and she tells us why:

My question concerns the amount of space you give the horoscope in comparison.

Egad! The newspaper publishes horoscope information? That’s terrible! Christine says:

A “Scientific Inquiry into the Validity of Astrology” in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, printed in 1990, found that six expert astrologers failed to do any better than “chance” in matching birthdates with subjects’ information.

We haven’t looked for that article, so we don’t have a link for you. But it’s good to see that Christine has respect for articles in scientific journals. Oh wait — according to Wikipedia, that journal is published by the Society for Scientific Exploration, and their opinions are “often at odds with those of mainstream science.” Could they be wrong about astrology? Let’s not get sidetracked by that question. Christine tells us:

Yet, if you do the research, science has shown the Bible to always be correct.

“Always correct?” For some reason, Christine doesn’t give us a reference to the scientific journal reporting on that. Could it be the same one she mentioned earlier? Then she tells us about even more scientific findings:

In fact, the Bible has even been ahead of scientific discoveries.

Wow! We didn’t know that. Christine’s letter ends with this:

I believe the “Truth of God’s Word” deserves more space than fiction.

We certainly hope the newspaper heeds Christine’s advice and devotes more space to The Truth. Great letter, Christine!

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

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,034: We Want The Truth™

  1. They can take their sincerely held BS and stuff it…they are LIARs!!

  2. She has a point. If you don’t believe in angels, but do believe in astrology, are you any better off?

  3. Probably the reason Christine didn’t cite any articles showing that science has show the bible to always be correct is that she made that up. And the only possible case of religion being ahead of science is the holy trinity, which is obviously a reference to quarks.

  4. Well, the Bible tells us that the universe had a beginning, whereas physicists a century ago held the belief that the universe was eternal. Then the Big Bang came along, confirming that the universe had a beginning. But then creationists are rejecting the Big Bang ….

  5. hans435 says: “… confirming that the universe had a beginning …”

    Not precisely. The current expansion of the universe had a beginning. We don’t know what was going on before that, but no one says the expansion began from literally nothing.

  6. Where does the Bible say the universe had a beginning? Not in Gen 1, where Elohim introduces some order into preexisting chaos, which for all we can tell had always existed.

  7. Our dear SC explains: “no one says the expansion began from literally nothing.”
    Neither does creationist nor any other apologist. Before the act of creation there was a god and god is not nothing, whether literally or metaphorically.
    We must distinguish between physical nothingness and philosophical nothingness. The latter is hardly interesting, because it doesn’t really make sense to humans. Physical nothingness is possible and the usual scientific picture is that the Big Bang, as far as our Universe is involved, started as physical nothingness indeed. So the theologians of the Vatican, who unlike Ol’Hambo, Klunkcerduncker and their kind are not stupid at all, have no problem with the Big Bang.
    Correct is probably (new empirical data might change my view, but are extremely hard to get by): our Universe started with the Big Bang; before the Big Bang (whatever before means, because as far as our Universe is involved time also started with the Big Bang) our Universe didn’t exist by definition. There might have been and be other stuff besides/beyond/whatever (because space started with the Big Bang too) our Universe. But whatever was going on, not our Universe. Your criticism of Hans is unjustified. What’s more, you are the one who sides with creationists when you reject the hypothesis of the Multiverse.
    If only we had some more clues.

  8. Correction: creationists claim that their god created our Universe from totally nothing. What the Bible says about it and how to interpret it doesn’t really interest me, because I think it’s bogus anyway. That’s so typical for apologetics and exegesis – you can interpret Bible texts in several, mutually exclusive ways and no way any consensus will ever be reached. So for unbelievers like me it’s silly to take sides. The simple answer is that there is no god. The problem with Hans’ comment is not that it’s imprecise, but that it’s irrelevant. Creationists will simply reply that his argument is based upon an incorrect reading of the Bible.
    Discussing whether Sauron and Voldemort were evil by nature or by burture is more fruitful than entering that particular rabbit hole.

  9. Desnes Diev

    “So many times, it is exactly what I need for my situation.”

    That’s exactly how horoscopes work, by Forer effect and other confirming bias.

    The study in JSE may have been inspired by another study of astrology (or astrologers) giving more or less the same results that published in Nature: Carlson, S. (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature, 318: 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1038/318419a0

    “Yet, if you do the research, science has shown the Bible to always be correct”

    Even when it says that bats are birds or that locusts “walk on all fours” as per Leviticus 11? Bible and biology don’t mix well.

  10. Michael Fugate

    Who is this “science”, when it’s at home?

  11. Before the 20th century, the usual scietific assumption was that there was infinte time, while the theologians said that there was only finite time.

  12. chris schilling

    “Yet, if you do the research, science has shown the Bible to always be correct.”

    We don’t need science to tell us Jesus didn’t return in his disciples’ lifetimes. History shows it didn’t happen.

    Either Jesus was lying, or his followers simply got it wrong. Either way, they both turned out to be about as reliable as astrologers. Hold on to your hats, everybody: Christine is making a false distinction between two equally unreliable belief systems.

  13. @ChrisS presents us a false dilemma:

    “Either Jesus was lying, or his followers simply got it wrong.”
    Or Jesus was a scatterbrain (the fact that he claimed to be the son of YHWH confirms this) who deludes himself and his fans. This is my bet.
    And that means Jesus’ prophecy of his Second Coming is less reliable than astrology. A horoscope might get a few things right now and then, even if by accident.