Readers speak: Worst anti-evolution argument ever?

Until this car evolves into an airplane, I ain't believing in no evolution no more (photo by Chris Willis, via Wikimedia Commons).

Editor’s note: Running a website that attempts to show the harmony between Christianity and evolution, it’s not uncommon for me to run afoul of my more literalist brothers and sisters. And I’ll be the first to admit that I’m as much to blame for this as anyone, since I don’t tend to be the “olive-branch-bearing” type.

So, occasionally, I do get emails and Facebook messages from fellow Christians who believe all of Genesis is meant to be read as perfectly preserved, literal history, and that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Much of the time, these messages are thoughtful, well-written, compelling and even amicable. But that is not the case today. No, what we now have on our hands is something historic: quite possibly, the worst anti-evolution email ever written.

I do not know the individual who wrote the following message, but I believe English is not his first language. Hence, we can and should forgive his grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, as he is probably far more adept at English than you or I would be at reading or writing any language other than our native tongues.

Whether or not today’s letter writer should be forgiven anything else, I will leave up to you.

dear god of evolution

i study biolgy

:i think have a very strong evidence for design in nature

a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

b) the ape is a self replicate robot

a+b= the ape need a designer

or even a self replicat watch.the evolution side always say that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

?plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human

the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of samll steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

but there is no step wise from car to airplan

evolution say that common similarity is evidence for common descent. but according to this 2 similar self replicat car are evolve from each other

according to evolution a car can evolve in a close room, beacuse a human can evolve in a close room and make a car

check those interesting sites

what you think? yours, guy

Convinced? I didn’t think so. This is the rare example of a reader’s comment that doesn’t even require snarky green text to be funny. And just so you know, the preceding letter was not altered in any way, other than the removal of a lot of unnecessary space in between the lines.

Per GOE’s email guidelines, the letter writer’s identity and email address will not be disclosed, so let’s consider this just a bit of harmless fun. I hope we can take this opportunity to share a chuckle or two, and remember to make the best arguments we possibly can should we choose to enter the realm of logical debate and scientific inquiry.

So what do you think, readers? Have we stumbled upon the worst anti-evolution argument ever? Let us know in the comments below.

Tyler Francke

  • RBH

    The worst anti-evolution argument by far is “If humans evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?” I heard that one from an acquaintance as recently as 6 months ago.

    • LOL. I had someone say use that argument on Facebook earlier today as a response to this very post. And I don’t know the guy, but it didn’t seem like he was joking.

  • Ed

    People are still saying evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I heard it in a sermon this May.

    • Zachary Lawson

      My favourite response is “That’s true if there’s no energy being fed into the system, but, you do realise that we’re orbiting a battery a million times bigger than this planet?”

      • Yes, that’s a good one, or just that the second law is not intended to and can’t make sense of something like the rise of complex life. There’s no meaningful way to calculate the entropy of a horse or a frog.

    • T. Woolford

      The 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which the earth clearly is not.

      • Really, there are so many different ways that “the 2LoTD disproves evolution” is a terrible argument, it’s hard to know where to start.

  • This guy although in error seems to at least be cordial. He is clearly ignorant and woe to the teachers who have fed him lies. Do you think the passage “not everyone should presume to be a teacher” is also applicable to pastors teaching other truths? I do. A common problem I think is that the YEC movements fear real scientists and this will forever be a stumbling block to their arguments. All of their objections seem to be based upon a shallow understanding of the science, and they try to refute theories which have already moved on. I was gifted an apologetic bible by my mother in law, and it contains an essay “refuting” evolution. The article made use of the classic “evolution doesn’t generate new information” argument. Any college biology graduate in the Church would immediately read this and see it as being at worst “dishonest” or being more charitable “ignorant”. YEC need teaching, however, they are going to have to want to be taught. Let’s pray for opportunities to do this.

  • Dylan Cook

    Well, it’s about TIME we should have some new articles on this place.