A Massive Ark-load of Creationist Nonsense

We found a goody for today. It’s titled Does science disprove God?, at the website of the Journal Review of Crawfordsville, Indiana. They have a comments feature, but we don’t see any yet. We’re not certain, but we think it was written by Father Michael Bower of St. Bernard Church, in Crawfordsville.

We don’t know if we should treat this one as a letter-to-the-editor, so we’ll just treat it normally. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

There is a story about Napoleon that I have found to be a striking example of our modern mentality about God. According to the story, he asked a famous physicist to produce a model of the universe. When this physicist produced it, Napoleon was impressed, but also perplexed. He asked why God was nowhere to be seen in the model. The physicist replied: “We no longer have need for that hypothesis.”

There are different versions of that story. In the Wikipedia article on Pierre-Simon Laplace, the scientist to whom Napoleon was speaking, there’s a section titled “I had no need of that hypothesis,” which is the response usually attributed to Laplace. Anyway, then the rev says:

Is that not such a typical example of how many of us think today? With all the advances of modern science it is easy to think that religion has now been replaced by science or that to be religious is to be unscientific.

But the rev sees things differently. He tells us:

I remember when I was in junior high, my teacher prefaced his lectures on evolution by saying that Christians don’t need to believe what he was teaching, because of the Bible. [Hee hee!] So, basically the impression I got was, to be Christian is to ignore science. [Gasp!] Now, if he would have said that many modern scientists are even questioning evolution on the basis of scientific evidence [They are?], I would have come away with a different message. But instead of that, he said that it contradicts the Bible, therefore it can be ignored.

Shocking. Absolutely shocking. The rev continues:

Studies have shown that the main reason people give up on belief in God, particularly the youth, is precisely this: they think it is unscientific and therefore not credible. But is this true? No.

Wowie — it’s not true that religion is unscientific. Let’s read on:

Most of the key scientists in history have believed in God. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Einstein all believed in God. [Well, Newton did.] I would even suggest that it is extremely difficult to have science without belief in God. [What?] How else can we explain the laws of science? Why isn’t everything just random? Some historians of science have actually argued that the main reason why science advanced so much in western civilization is precisely because of the Christian belief that God created and designed the various structures and laws of the universe.

Amazing. We debunked the claim that science arose from religion in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, in the section titled Great scientists of old were creationists. Okay, here’s another excerpt from the rev’s column:

What is even cooler [Cooler!], I think, as a Catholic, is just how influential the Catholic church in particular has been in the advance of science. For example, it was a Catholic monk who invented the scientific method. [What?] It was the Catholic church who produced so many of the influential scientists — many of them were even priests. For example, did you know that the collaborator with Einstein who first formulated the theory of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest?

Wikipedia’s article on History of scientific method starts with the ancient Greeks. It’s definitely not a creationist achievement. Here’s more from the rev:

But what about Galileo? Didn’t the Catholic Church condemn him because of his scientific discoveries? [Yes!] Even though this is often said, it simply isn’t true. [What?] Galileo’s discoveries were welcomed by the church. [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!] As a matter of fact, the Pope who censored his work was actually the one who had been funding most of his research. The reason why Galileo was censored is because the heliocentric model was still not proven by his research. There are many aspects of his theory that are actually considered laughable by modern astronomers (i.e. the motion of the tides). Astronomers were already interested in the heliocentric model before Galileo. It is just that nobody had been able to produce enough evidence to prove that it was more satisfactory than the geocentric model of the solar system.

That paragraph is the biggest pile of you-know-what we’ve seen in a long time. If you haven’t read it recently, see Galileo affair.

After quoting Stephen Hawking out of context, the rev concludes with this:

Galileo’s work was censored because he was overstating his case trying to argue that the geocentric model had been officially disproved by his findings. But it hadn’t been. In other words, the church censored his work, because Galileo, himself, was being unscientific about his findings.

That was one of the worst ever! You agree, don’t you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

18 responses to “A Massive Ark-load of Creationist Nonsense

  1. Yes Curmudgeon, I agree. Whoever the writer may be, he, she, or it knows nothing about their subject.

  2. It is true that Galileo was mistaken about the tides. He thought that the explanation of the tides depended on the motion of the Earth, not (mainly) on the Moon.

  3. If being unscientific is a heresy then the Bible should be excommunicated, or at least confess and pay a pretty good indulgence, wink wink.

  4. Ross Cameron

    One subject I have never heard discussed by creos is the role of bacteria in the running of this world. It used to be said humans were 90% bacteria. The current figure is circa 46%. My question to creationists is this, if we were made in the image (whatever that means) of god, is god 46-90% bacteria?

  5. Oy, the Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one. So young to be infected with such Egnorance.

  6. @Ross Cameron
    The human body, if it is designed, it is designed to be most like the bodies of chimps and other apes, of all of the designs of the world.

  7. chris schilling

    The fact that we ourselves are material entities should be all the disproof needed to refute claims of being created/designed in the ‘image’ of a non-material entity.

  8. Dave Luckett

    The Rev has an extremely one-eyed view of history, and SC’s description is exactly correct. I commiserate with the good father’s maleducation, but would say that, since he is literate and possessed of the internet, he could do better if he chose.

    As for the rest, at the tail of the post immediately before this one, entitled “The Demise of a Great Creation Scientist”, I ended up writing an essay against this particular set of misconceptions, not knowing that this post would present them again. It was tedious to write, and no doubt the same to read, but it is all I have to say on the subject.

  9. FWIW, There really was a monk (Roger Bacon) who helped revive the study of nature by observation (which goes back at least to the Greeks, of course), and, unlike the Greeks, used experiment. But in this he was directly influenced by Ibn Al-Haytham, who is perhaps the individual who more than anyone else brought together observation, experiment, and explanation.

    As I may have said here before, Laplace was talking about how he had advanced beyond Newton. Newton thought that God would need to interfere with the solar system from time to time, otherwise their gravitational interaction between planets would move them from their stable orbits. Laplace developed the mathematical theory of perturbations, and showed that these effects were small, which is why he did not need God for this purpose. Though actually it is not always the case that the cumulative effects are small, and calculations suggest that in two or three billion years, Mercury may end up being ejected from its orbit.

  10. The official list of books which were banned by the Catholic Church included books about the Sun-centered Solar system, and this was gradually reduced until in 1835 the last traces of that were removed.

  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Tetzel

    “Luther claimed, that Tetzel had received a substantial amount of money at Leipzig, from a nobleman asking him for a letter of indulgence for a future sin. Supposedly Tetzel answered in the affirmative, insisting that the payment had to be made at once. The nobleman did so and received a letter and seal from Tetzel.

    “However, when Tetzel left Leipzig the nobleman attacked him along the way, and gave him a thorough beating, sending him back empty-handed to Leipzig, with the comment that it was the future sin which he had in mind. Duke George at first was quite furious about the incident, but when he heard the whole story, he let it go without punishing the nobleman.”

  12. Posted prematurely due to cat nonsense, but I was going to comment that of course Martin Luther would never lie about anything nor would he pass long any lies to to his immaculate discernment capabilities.

  13. Off topic, but should be welcomed
    The Nobel prize for physiology or medicine
    Svante Paabo

  14. From what I have seen science DID NOT advance in any important way until they told religion to shovel it!!!
    Try finding out how the body works in life & death without dissection! And their are still religions today that try to forbid it! As the body is sacred (what ever that means). Religion has always and still is (try doing stem cell research) a deterrent to science.

  15. See the Wikipedia article “On the Sacred Disease”, about a work attributed to Hippocrates, which work doubts that epilepsy has supernatural origin.
    There is a comment in Hesiod’s Theogony, where the Muses say
    “We know how to tell many believable lies” (28).

  16. @TomS, AiG referred to Paabo’s Neanderthal sequencing with approval when it appeared in 2009: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/news-to-know/news-to-note-october-31-2009/ They didn’t agree with the timeline, of course…

  17. Stephen Kennedy

    The reason the Catholic Church condemned Galileo was not because of his promotion of the Heliocentric Theory, which the Church had little interest in, but to statements Galileo made asserting that scripture would have to be reinterpreted in light of his findings. This was something that the Catholic Church cared a lot about. This was a time when the Catholic Church was engaged in a struggle for its very survival, a war in which who had the right to interpret scripture was the major point of contention.

    The Catholic Church does not oppose the Theory of Evolution and the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory was Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. I graduated from a Catholic high school and a number of my classmates appear to be part of a new movement within the Church embracing a much more conservative Theology, including adopting creationism, and rejecting current Church teachings on a number of issues. It appears there are now Catholics, like the author of the above post, who are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

  18. Galileo complained that he was faced with scriptural arguments against heliocentrism, and when he answered those arguments, he was faced with the charge that he was not to go into theology.