Thoughts in a Haystack

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has already made (justifiable) fun of the original letter to the editor here, "Creationist Wisdom #311: The Ol' Ranger."

But I can't resist highlighting the (the so-far sole) comment to the letter by one Pete Greer. He is upset:

Mr. editor, I would like to show you a few conflicts between man's word (represented by the microbe to man Theory of Evolution) and God's Word (a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1). Evolution states that dinosaurs came before birds and Genesis says that birds came before land animals. Evolution says that the sun existed before plants and Genesis says that plants came before the sun. Evolution says that marine creatures came before land plants and Genesis says that land plants came before marine creatures. These are just 3 of many examples that demonstrate that a person must choose who to believe. These statements are in direct conflict, they cannot be reconciled with one another.

At first, I thought that Mr. Greer might be perpetrating a sly parody of creationism but, sadly, apparently not.

The concept of kinds stated in Genesis 1 (ten different times) stands today as a truth that has never been negated by OBSERVATIONAL science ... (Kind is usually on the level of family in the human classification system.)

Well, if he is using the standard bafflegab about "observational science" as something we can reproduce in a laboratory or has been observed during a human life span, then no, we haven't directly observed the origin of a new taxonomic family. If we had, of course, it would be a pretty good disproof of evolutionary science.

Frighteningly, Mr. Greer is not content to keep his ignorance to himself ... he spreads it like a virus:

I do teach basic genetics to older children in Sunday School at the appropriate time so they can understand the simple difference between the biblical view and what they learn in the public school classroom.

Because, naturally, Sunday School is where science should be taught.

But this is what made me comment:

What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious?

Well, let's see ... so far you have denied the science of cosmology, astronomy, physics, radiometric dating, geology, taphonomy, biology and ... for good measure ... the kind of archeology that Christians often cite as evidence for the truth of the Bible.

Maybe if you stop denying just about all of science, you might have a tad better likelihood of being considered scientific.

Unfortunately, it's so much easier to shoot yourself in the foot when you're wearing floppy shoes.