Creationist Wisdom #1,053: Godless Darwinism

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Observer-Dispatch of Utica, New York. It’s titled We’ve lost our way, and it’s the second letter at that link. The newspaper doesn’t seem to have a comments feature.

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 Bob. 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!

We search to find answers for the source of our unprecedented national and global turmoil. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when our nation began its descent [Indeed it is!], but my belief is that Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was the impetus.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a great start! This is going to be a fantastic letter. Bob then says:

There was opposition to God before Darwin [There were always fools!] but the theory of evolution is man’s attempt to deny God’s existence and to prove we don’t need God.

Wow — not merely denial, but also attempted proof! Evolution is truly an evil doctrine! Bob tells us:

At its core it is atheism. [Gasp!] A century later we witness the result of removing God. We no longer have school prayer yet teaching evolution is mandated and taught as a fact, not theory (it isn’t).

It isn’t fact or it isn’t theory? We’re not sure which one Bob is saying. Anyway, he continues:

Then came abortion and its rejection of the sanctity of life followed by same-sex marriage and its rejection of God’s design for marriage — one man, one woman.

Jeepers, he’s right! There was never any abortion before Darwin. Oh wait — if abortions weren’t common before Darwin, why did the Hippocratic Oath, attributed to Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 BC), originally say that a doctor would not help a woman have an abortion? We’ll have to regard that as an abominable mystery. Let’s read on:

To its shame, the Roman Catholic Church endorses evolution as do most mainline Protestant churches. This is blasphemy!

Blasphemy? Aaaargh!! Here’s more:

The past several generations in this country have grown up in a godless school system, a godless society and godless churches.

Godless churches? It’s even worse than we feared! And now we come to the end:

Our problem is godlessness and only repentance and seeking Jesus Christ is the solution.

Bob’s right, dear reader. And to seek repentance, you must abandon Darwinism — before it’s too late!

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,053: Godless Darwinism

  1. Eddie Janssen

    How can we abandon Darwinism if you keep this blog up?
    Heathen!

  2. Darwin published Origin in 1859. Then the rot set in, and the US abolished slavery in 1865. Things are never been the same since

  3. “It isn’t fact or it isn’t theory? We’re not sure which one Bob is saying.”
    My bet is that according to Uncle Bob it’s neither a fact nor a theory.

  4. I don’t think that the Roman Catholic Church endorses biological evolution, just that it doesn’t have an official stance on rejecting most science. They did learn, eventually. i think that most Catholic schools, from K-12 through research institutions teach standard science. But there is, I believe, an official condemnation of abortion. I have heard that Catholics were against abortion before evangelical Protestants cared. I bring this up because this would seem to suggest that abortion is not connected with accepting biological evolution.
    I will gladly accept correction on official stances of any church.

  5. skmarshall

    “The mention of creationism sends evolutionists/liberals/atheists into a frenzy.”

    Curmy, don’t it just gall ya when somebody lumps you together with those dam’ commie-socialist-liberals? Sheesh.

  6. Michael Fugate

    Bob and his fellow letter writer Don are feeling their privilege slipping away. Everything they took for granted is suddenly not so solid. Just imagine the surprise that their heroes have feet of clay, that they might encounter a person on the street of Utica that doesn’t look like them or speaks another language, that “those people” might even move in next door, that everyone might not want to be subjected to a “Christian” prayer at school or government meetings. I feel for you guys, I really do. As my late father said, “don’t get old.”

    As for abortion, my limited understanding is that pro-life protestants are an outcome of Roe v. Wade – they were indifferent before women got rights to control their reproduction, then suddenly the poor dear men who ran the show felt threatened and tried to show they were still in charge. The holes in the sieve of power keep getting bigger…

  7. skmarshall says: “Curmy, don’t it just gall ya …”

    It used to, but I’ve learned that life is a lot easier if I just ignore a whole lot of stuff.

  8. @TomS: Wikipedia’s Evolution and the Catholic Church quotes a few popes.

    From the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis:

    “The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”

    This generally and rightly seen as the moment that the RCC accepted evolution. However as it’s not dogma catholics are free to promote creacrap. There is also a Wikipedia lemma called List of Catholic Creationist Organisations.
    We should never forget that the RCC wants to be a Mother Church, caring for all her children. Both leftist archbishop Oscar Romero and fascist war criminal friar Miroslav Filipovic were devout members.
    So it’s easy to accept both creationists and evolutionary biologists as members.

    @ our dear SC: “life is a lot easier if I just ignore a whole lot of stuff”
    Creationists are experts in this regard.

  9. Timothy Norfolk

    Why does Numbers (Chapter 6, if I recall), give instructions for the priest to cause your wife to abort?

  10. Michael Fugate

    Speaking of this – here is the LInkedIn profile of Trump’s legal advisor
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennaellisjdfi/
    This is the insanity of the current administration.

  11. chris schilling

    SC sets out a useful philosophy for life: ” [L]ife is a lot easier if I just ignore a whole lot of stuff.”

    Perhaps what drives creationists like Bob crazy is a basic inability to reconcile themselves to the fact that many things lie outside their immediate control.

    There’s little point railing against “blasphemy”, so-called, if the god you worship isn’t prepared to actively get involved and prevent such outrages Himself. That just gives the impression that Bob is highly exercised by the general rot, but God isn’t.

  12. Dave Luckett

    Bob is ignorant, and wishes to remain ignorant. That’s not quite exhaustive, but as my scaly mate Ian puts it, it’s close enough for government work. Typically, his ignorance extends in all directions. He’s as ignorant of history and law as he is of science. Also typically, he is ignorant of the Bible, if he thinks “one man, one woman” is God’s design for marriage.

    But of course the issue is not Bob’s ignorance. It is its intractability. There is no effective treatment for it. The only possible approach is to isolate it.

  13. Dave Luckett

    I looked at the linked in profile you supplied, Michael Fugate. What insanity is demonstrated in that?

  14. Michael Fugate

    Focus on the Family?

  15. Michael Fugate

    Breitbart?

  16. Dave Luckett

    Is guilt – or rather, insanity – by association what we do now?

  17. Dave Luckett

    Oh, by the way, Michael Fugate, I entirely agree with the opinion piece from the Guardian you posted, last thread. Debate on the actual status of slavery in the US – and elsewhere – in the first “fourscore and seven” years of the Republic, and its sequelae up to this day, is an exercise of free speech which the government may properly fund. The Senator is wrong.

    As it happens, I think the proposition that the US declared its independence and fought the Revolutionary War to protect slavery is vastly overblown, but I am perfectly willing to see reasonable argument for it, and it is wrong to attempt to suppress or “cancel” it.

    I am just as unwilling to attempt to “cancel” criticism of my own country’s treatment of Aboriginal and other indigenous people. There is much there to be ashamed of, and to attempt to repair. The US, like Australia, like all nations whatsoever, is guilty of terrible crimes. All I can plead is that this is true of everyone, but that we have done better lately, that the improvement continues: and that we would be foolish to dismantle the means that have achieved that much.