Creationist Wisdom #1,075: Evolution Isn’t Science

This is the third time we’ve titled one of these things “Evolution Isn’t Science.” The earlier two use arguments similar (but not identical) to what we found today, and you can find them here: #555: Evolution Isn’t Science and #584: Evolution Isn’t Science.

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Carroll County Times of Westminster, Maryland. The letter is titled The Bible is science; evolution requires faith, and it’s the second letter at that link. The newspaper doesn’t 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 Steve. 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!

Dean Minnich’s opinions expressed in his March 18 column offer so many plums, its difficult to pick only one, but here goes.

Steve may be referring to this: No shots? Check out Darwin. It doesn’t matter. Then he says:

As one of your “dinosaurs,” I propose you can’t believe both natural selection and science, because evolution and the Big Bang contradict the basic laws of real science. [Wowie!] For instance, the law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life. [Hee hee!]

That old clunker is still making the rounds. We discussed it in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. But wait ’til you see Steve’s next “basic law of real science”: Here it comes:

The law of probability tells us that anything over 1 in 10 to the 50th power will never happen, and the odds against spontaneous life happening are 1 in 10 to the 123rd power.

Your Curmudgeon is stunned — absolutely stunned. We’ll let you refute that one, dear reader — if you can. And that’s not all Steve’s got. Now he tells us:

The law of causality says no effect can be greater than its cause. [Uh, okay. Now what?] Since Earth contains complex creatures which have information (DNA) and intelligence (brains), the “cause” necessarily had to have information, which can not appear in “matter.”

Aaaargh!! He continues:

The first law of thermodynamics states that we live in a closed universe. All we can do is convert existing matter and energy to a different matter or energy, and that, always imperfectly.

That’s almost a fair statement — see Laws of thermodynamics. Where is Steve going with this? Let’s read on:

The second Law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy, states that everything in the universe is irreversibly winding down, going from order to disorder, and ultimately leading to cessation of all processes. That is the opposite of evolution and natural selection which claims everything is improving through selection of the fittest.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s been in the TalkOrigins Index of Creationist Claims for eons — see The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. Steve is amazing! Here’s another excerpt:

In the Christian Bible, the first 10 words of Genesis record the creation of the space-time-matter continuum, which makes up our entire physical cosmos: “In the beginning” = time, “God created” = matter, “the heavens and the earth” = space.

Brilliant translation! And now we come to the end of Steve’s letter:

Science is the reason most people deny the authority and accuracy of the Bible, and yet, the Bible is science. [Yes — oh yes!] It takes vastly more faith to believe in evolution, than it does to believe in a creator God.

Well there you are, dear reader. That’s one of the most amazing letters we’ve ever seen in this series. Are you persuaded? If not, why not?

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

17 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,075: Evolution Isn’t Science

  1. Once again I don’t have access to this American journal. This time the message is quite funny itself:

    “We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.”
    Makes me wonder how many such solutions the Baltimore Sun (it’s to its sight that I get redirected) already has identified.
    Back to Stevie.

    “The law of probability tells us that anything over 1 in 10 to the 50th power will never happen”
    Ah yes, that distortion called Borel’s Law. It has been disbunked more than 15 years ago.

    http://www.aetheling.com/essays/Borel.html

    Key sentence: “referring to a comment that Borel made in a couple of popular non-technical books written late in his life”.
    That’s Stevie’s “real science” for you, not the technical stuff Borel actually developed. Stevie’s parroting a lie. Borel though is more or less guilty because he oversimplified.
    The link btw indirectly also refutes Ol’Hambo’s Post-Global Flood Hyper Accelerated Evolution. Given that Stevie tries to refute the Big Bang he likely is a YECer too. One Mike Riddle at AIG promoted the same clunker (google “Mike Riddle does evolution have a chance” for the original article and yet another debunk, this time by an evolutionary biologist).

    “The law of causality says no effect can be greater than its cause.”
    As Stevie doesn’t tell us what he means with “greater” this means as little as “the sound of number 15”.

    “evolution and natural selection which claims everything is improving through selection of the fittest”
    Granted, those who suffer from Free Market Superstition believe something similar regarding economical politics, but evolution theory doesn’t make such claim. I mean, no evolutionary biologist maintains that the dodo was the result of improvement just before Dutch seafarers decided to hunt them and caused their extinction.

  2. Laurette McGovern

    Is there anything–ANYTHING–new here, that hasn’t been stated 10, 20, 30 or more years before? And that hasn’t been answered and refuted each time.

    It’s getting tiresome

  3. Theodore J Lawry

    When will SC find a creationist who says that science isn’t science? There must be one out there surely?

  4. The letter that “Steve” mentions was on the subject that “a growing number of people, mostly conservative Republicans, are not going to get vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus”.

    Somehow this makes Steve see red. And his response seems to be that since the Bible doesn’t mention vaccination then he (Steve) is perfectly justified in not getting vaccinated. I shall keep an eye out for Steve’s death notice (cause of death: Covid-19) and let’s just hope he doesn’t infect too many others along the way

  5. @Theodore J Lawry
    1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
    O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

  6. Derek Freyberg

    Steve: “The law of causality says no effect can be greater than its cause.”
    Steve, you wouldn’t mind holding a stick of dynamite and lighting the fuse with just one little match to test your theory, would you?

  7. @Detek Freyberg
    Butterfly Effect

  8. Dave Luckett

    Laurette McG: Getting tiresome? This was ‘way beyond tiresome a hundred years ago.

    “Law of biogenesis”? There is no such law, goddammit! Pasteur demonstrated that only living things replicate themselves. He did not demonstrate that living things never arose from non-living material.

    There is no “law of probability”. The only law that applies is a version of Murphy’s: “If it can happen, it will happen”. DNA can happen, therefore it will.

    The laws of thermodynamics offer no challenge to evolution, either. In fact, they specifically allow for increased order and complexity in open systems – such as the Earth.

    What Steve is sorta half-remembering is some stuff he heard in General Science or some such in the eighth grade or so. He was half-asleep at the time, and he’d no more be able to demonstrate his assertions than flap his arms and fly. He’s so locked in his personal convictions that it cannot occur to him that scientists have long ago considered all his objections, and rejected them, and they did it far more exhaustively and with far better understanding of the evidence than Steve could ever muster.

    But that’s Steve and his whole tribe. They wouldn’t know anything, but they think they do, on account of they’re just as smart as them scientists. Well, they’re not.

    And that, as usual, applies also to Steve’s understanding of scripture, which is of the usual creatonist standard. No, Steve, it does not say that God created “space”. It doesn’t say He created matter or energy, either. You’re making stuff up and putting it in. That’s supposed to be forbidden, Steve. You’re the one who’s saying the text is sacred.

    So as well as being an ignoramus and a parroter of lies, Steve’s a hypocrite. Well, he’s a creationist. That’s what creationists always are. That, on its own, is so much a commonplace as to be tiresome in itself.

  9. @LauretteMcG is getting desperate: “Is there anything–ANYTHING ….”
    No.

  10. ‘no effect can be greater than its cause.’ please stand 1/2mi from the minor explosion that will slam 2 pieces of U235 together!
    And you silly dimwit the probability of life is 100%!!! Except maybe in your case as zombies aren’t alive.

  11. @L. Long
    Whatever the probability of life, given the laws of nature …
    How does that compare with the probability of life, without any laws?
    What if the laws of nature are fine-tuned for life?
    What if the Earth is a privileged planet?
    What is the probability that God would create life in only one small region of space?
    What is the probability that God would create the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

  12. @TomS …1-Probability is 100% and there are no LAWS of nature. nature is what it is and the laws are descriptive.
    2-there are no LAWS so again look in mirror-probability 100%
    3-still no laws and yes nature is fine tuned…what ever that means!
    4-The earth is NOT privileged …it is INFECTED!!
    5-0% aint no gawd!
    6-0% aint no gawd..aint no law, it is a language construct to describe the actions.

  13. @L.Long: you should learn the difference between A Priori Probability and A Posteriority Probability (which is obviously 1 for Earthly life indeed). That creacrappers like Stevie don’t understand it either is no excuse for your lack of understanding of this topic. If you’re saying that the A Priori Probability of life on Earth is 1 then the principle “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” applies – and the latter simply is not available (and won’t be for a long time from now).

  14. docbill1351

    Agent Smith got it right. Humans are a plague.

  15. L.Long:
    I have toured the Nevada Test Site. There are a lot of examples of the bad things that can happen if you stand too close. But they are still looking for Indy’s refrigerator.

    Didn’t Demski also list an upper bound for the probability of an event?

  16. @FrankB
    I’ll admit I don’t know the difference in your fancy big words and it don’t matter. The probability of life on earth is 100% or 1, but you nor any creatard can say ANYTHING on the probability of life anywhere else as the survey data is ZERO!!! So all a creatard can do is a YAG!! which is meaningless, and shows they are terrified of saying I don’t know!

  17. @L Long
    The argument is that the probability
    of life from natural causes is very small.
    The question that I raise is whether introducing creation or intelligent design or the supernatural makes the probability bigger.