Creationist Wisdom #1,071: The Ultimate?

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Item of Sunbury, Pennsylvania. It’s titled Scientific method, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

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 have an exceptional situation. The letter-writer is Harold Lerch Sr., P.E.-Ret’d, (P.E. might mean Professional Engineer), and when we looked him up we found a link to this press release from Xulon Press, which describes itself as “the world’s largest Christian self-publisher.” That means he also qualifies for our list of Self-Published Geniuses, and we always use their full names.

We’re not going to write about this guy’s book, but here it is at Amazon: Did God Really Say That?

Okay, now that we’re all impressed, let’s see what Harold says in his letter. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I thank Mr. Peeling for pointing out Darwin’s birthday and the “evolution” of COVID-19 (Letter to the editor, Feb. 12). Some of us celebrate Lincoln’s birthday, instead. [Why?] He believed in the creator God. [Ah, good reason!]

Harold is writing about this letter: Happy birthday, Darwin, which mentions that Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day, and recommends that we use Darwin’s science when dealing with the coronavirus. Harold Lerch Sr., P.E.-Ret’d, doesn’t like that, and he says:

The changes in COVID through natural selection are called microevolution, or variety within kind.

Harold is dancing the micro-macro mambo, which we described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. After that he tells us:

These changes only come from variability encoded in the DNA by a designer. [Ooooooooooooh! A designer!] For example, all dog breeds came from a common ancestor.

Where is he going with dog breeds? The letter continues:

The apparent differences come from selection for desirable characteristics but which cause each breed to lose genetic information. A dachshund is descended from a wolf, but has lost information making it impossible to breed it back to a wolf.

Where have we seen that clunker about lost information? Ah yes — Discovery Institute Says Dogs Are Degenerates, and also Discovery Institute: Dogs Are Degenerates, Part 2.

Harold’s letter is rather brief, and it ends with this:

Darwin went too far [Gasp!] when he espoused macro-evolution (molecules-to-man). Every biologist knows in his heart that the fossil record is absent of any example of this that can stand up to the scientific method.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He should take a look at Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils.

We are grateful to Harold Lerch Sr., P.E.-Ret’d, for today’s letter, which seems like it was written while wearing a pant-load of poo. And the Discoveroids are undoubtedly delighted to learn that they have an ardent follower of their creationist blog.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,071: The Ultimate?

  1. I have a guess as to what “Ret’d” might stand for.

  2. Eddie Janssen

    One wonders what information the platypus has lost.

  3. From molecule to man, that isn’t a matter of evolution, that is reproduction, development, metabolism.

  4. chris schilling

    “A dachshund is descended from a wolf, but has lost information making it impossible to breed it back to a wolf.”

    A dachshund is still a ‘wolf’, albeit a highly modified one. The fact that Harry considers the dachshund to be a dog and not a wolf means we’ve already crossed the micro-macro divide and gained rather than ‘lost information.’

    (Harold doesn’t enquire into where wolves came from. If he did, he’d find wolves are modified descendants from ancestral canids which, in turn, are modified descendants from some sort of Eocene miacid. And so on…)

    Anyway, sounds pretty ‘macro’ to me, however you look at it, and impressive enough in view of all that supposed “lost information.” Every “biologist” [sic] who examines the fossil record can trace the lineage of Paleocene and Eocene Carnivora with some accuracy.

    Baby Harold needs a diaper change.

  5. From the look inside feature at Amazon we can learn that PE means Professional Engineer indeed. This quote is nice:

    “The science behind evolution is very complicated.”
    Kudos for Harold for admitting that evolution is scientific and hence his creacrap is not.

    “It really does take years to become modestly learned in the evolutionary field.”
    That may be the case, but to learn just enough about evolution to be able to recognize creacrap nonsense about evolution only takes a few days.

    “Creation, on the other hand, can be a comparitively simple concept.”
    Again kudos for Harold. “Goddiddid” indeed takes far less time – so little that it doesn’t make sense to include it in school curricula.

    “For example, all dog breeds came from a common ancestor.”
    Oooohhhh, I really like Harold. Dogs are a favourite example of mine of speciation in action, right before our nices. Now the big question rises: are dogs a seperate baramin or do they belong to the same baramin as grey wolves? And how do creacrappers like Harold decide?

    “A dachshund is descended from a wolf”
    Ah, the same baramin. Apparently speciation within the baramin dog-wolf is possible according to Harold. But how did he arrive at that conclusion?
    Hmmm, to me it looks like this: whenever information is lost – micro-evolution. Whenever information appears to be gained – goddiddid, specifically 6000 years ago. Evidence: the Bible says so.
    That answers EddieJ’s question. If there is no information lost it’s because the platypus still is the same as 6000 years ago.
    Well, it’s a nice challenge: find ourselves an example of observed speciation (YECers claim that they accept the testimonies of eyewitnesses) that resulted in an increase of information by means of mutations (the products of which can be observed repeatedly, so we’re doing observational/operational science).

    “And the Discoveroids are undoubtedly delighted to learn that they have an ardent follower of their creationist blog.”
    Probably – Harold is a YECer.

  6. I don’t know what we can say about this:
    There are ancient Egyptian mummies of animals, cats, etc.
    Genesis tells us about cattle, sheep and goats, all in the same family, at the time of Abraham.
    The Bible does not say anything about changes and kinds.

  7. A brief read of the first few pages of his book is more than enough: Lerch (What a name! Addams Family, anyone?) is a loon, and also an ignoramus. Within two pages we have “how could the eye have evolved?” and another iteration of that absolute flat lie, “there are no transitional fossils”. The rest is the Bible, Bible, Bible, Satan, Bible. And more of the same.

    At least he admits he’s ignorant. You would think that might cause him to go in search of facts. But not a bit of it. You actually have to be bothered by your ignorance to do that, and it’s blatantly obvious that he is not. In fact he cherishes it.

    We’re living longer. I don’t know the figures in the US, but here the average life expectancy is now 81 years for men, 85 for women. We stand poised on the brink of developments that might add another 20 or 30 years to that. But I’m telling you, if that adds to the population of wittering old fools like Harold Lerch, it will not be an improvement.

  8. It struck me how in the one field of astronomy what has been learned in
    a hundred years, so that every elementary school kid knows stuff that was just just beginning to be grasped by the professionals in 1920.
    The heavens are populated by billions of galaxies, millions of light-years distant. The stars are powered by nuclear reactions. Etc. This is all known by kids today practically as common sense.
    One can name so much that has been learned in various fields of science so that everyone knows the basics.
    Maybe it is too much to expect that so much can be absorbed without some kind of reaction. Enough of this reasoning! Let’s go back to tribalism!

  9. He also gets variation wrong. Since viruses reproduce clonally, there is no broad gene pool that “the designer” created. There is only one original virus that mutates to create new variants, some of which seem to have better ability to infect humans. Not sure how information loss could make them better at infecting us, but I’m sure some creationist could tell us.

  10. Perhaps Ret’d” means “retarded”

  11. Les – see first comment; probably what most are thinking 🙂

  12. Harold tells us “These changes only come from variability encoded in the DNA by a designer”. So where did the SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus, get it’s variability Harold? It’s clearly evolving in ways that concern epidemiologists and virologists without any of the DNA from your magical mystical designer guy.