Re: One of the dumbest creationist arguments I've read in a long time (letter to the editor of my local newspaper)


Josh M. wrote:
> I found this on my local newspaper's website. Oddly enough, the heading says
> "Both theories or neither should be taught," but the author of this letter
> is clearly very much against the teaching of evolution. My comments are in
> brackets.
> --------------------------
> To the editor:
>
> Evolution 101. Ready, class?
>
> As you know, the Wright brothers built the first flying machine. We know
> that it was more or less glided with power downhill, but it did fly. This
> single-place aircraft has evolved into the passenger jet of today, able to
> carry hundreds of passengers.
>
> Also, we know that Henry Ford's Model T, able to travel 10-15 miles per
> hour, has evolved into cars and trucks capable of 80 miles per hour-plus.
> Now, the part that has been left out and continues to be overlooked is what
> had to be done before any of these things could happen. Before the Wrights
> could build their airplane and Ford could build his car, they had to design
> all the nuts, bolts, fasteners, pieces and parts and the blueprint of what
> wouldmake up the machines. In other words, the intelligent design part. This
> phase cannot be overlooked, hidden, or denied.
>
> [The above is the typical creationist bullshit we've seen time and again.
> What follows is one of the most bizarre, inane, creationist arguments I've
> ever read.]
>
> By a stretch of our imagination, we could use magician Harry Houdini as an
> example. Let's say we watch as he cuts a length of rope, ties it together
> and then, presto, it is once more one strand, with a knot sliding back and
> forth on it. For the next trick he takes his hat and turns it over and
> around, sets it on the table and then, reaching in, pulls out a rabbit.
>
> The rope reconnecting and the rabbit evolving from nothing into a grown
> animal would definitely be evolution.
>
> Many have witnessed these or similar things, but do they believe them? No.
> We knowtricks such as these have to be thought out and planned and practiced
> until perfected.
>
> [The rest is typical creationist stupidity.]
>
> Now, class, the test: Take a vacuum of nothing but space--no air, elements,
> or gases--and have something evolve from it. You have two choices:
> Everything has evolved through intelligent design, or some magician had to
> begin everything.
>
That is quite a curious way to use the term "evolve."

> [Um, "evolved through intelligent design" or "some magician..." What's the
> difference? Is there a difference? Who's to say? This is more incoherent
> than the usual creationist arguments!]

Perhaps he means the universe was either created by an intelligent
magician or an unintelligent magician. Or perhaps it is an argument
for mental health parity, using himself as an example of one who might
benefit from it.


> I suggest that because we do not have reliable, substantiating proof of
> evolution from nothing, we should teach either both or neither to the
> students.
>
> [Name witheld, out of mercy, by yours truly]
> ---------------------------------
>
> Fortunately, the other two letters published were very much against ID.

.

Relevant Pages