Don’t call someone ignorant while admitting you, yourself, are ignorant

A while back I came across the following post entitled “Just Pondering Creationism“.  It’s a post by a creationist named Michael Brewer stating that God made the earth in six literal days, the creation was originally perfect, maybe there’s a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and so on. 

Now, in my opinion, the post itself wasn’t really that interesting, but the ensuing comments were.

A poster named bobcu wrote about the mountains of evidence supporting evolution, and then a rather childish commenter insulted bobcu.  Pretty standard back-and-forth science vs. religion stuff.

But then it got interesting.

The original poster, Michael Brewer, then wrote that:

But honesly, bobcu, needs a lot more education in science and scientific theory, and he speaks without really knowing what he’s talking about. Otherwise he would be hurting to explain the contradictions to natural science that occur in the natural world.

Michael then mentions what he feels those contradictions are:

Macro and micro physics are a great example. Or how about the way atoms stay together instead of unravelling. (And that is some of the few things I do know and I know very little about science.)

First of all, what exactly are the problems Michael is seeing with science in these areas?  We do not know, because he will not elaborate.  But the real kicker is the last bit, where Michael admits he knows “very little” about science after just telling another person, bobcu, to get more educated in science and scientific theory!

Now, while this is aleady rather pathetic, it gets even worse for Michael.  In another post titled, “Just Pondering Creationism: Carbon 14 Dating“, Michael provides a link called “The Carbon 14 Myth”, which essentially sets up a straw man argument saying that when evolutionists use carbon 14 dating to refer to fossils older than 50,000 years, they are idiots.  (No, really?  Fortunately, most evolutionists do NOT do that.  I’ve never known one to do so, as they are, usually, much more intelligent than that.)  In this post, Michael admits that he:

  • has very little knowledge of the spectrum of science, and
  • has poor math skills.

I don’t think it will come as any surprise to anyone who reads this blog regularly that I attempted to point these facts out to Michael in the following comment on September 2:

I’m not really seeing anywhere in your post exactly why you believe the six days were literal.

“Why six literal days? Well besides believing that God is much greater than I can fathom and by His will all things were, are, and remain to be (Revelation 4:11), I also believe that God made His creation perfect (“And God saw that it was good…”).”

It says in your own quote that God called it good, not perfect. So what makes you think it was perfect?

“I’m a creationist…but maybe not your average creationist?”

Sounds pretty average to me. I don’t mean that in an insulting manner at all. Rather, I think you may be comforted to realize there are many creationists out there that have proposed exactly what you are talking about. Google “gap theory”.

“But honesly, bobcu, needs a lot more education in science and scientific theory, and he speaks without really knowing what he’s talking about.”

This is rather ironic and a little rude considering that in your Carbon 14 post you said yourself that you have little knowledge of the spectrum of science. And, just a few lines later, you admit this again–”(And that is some of the few things I do know and I know very little about science.)”

“Otherwise he would be hurting to explain the contradictions to natural science that occur in the natural world. ”

Be more specific, please.

Michael has not responded to this comment, though he has replied since then to others in the thread, so I’m willing to bet my comment did not get overlooked.

Now, I’m not trying to pick on the guy just for “picking’s” sake.  I’m really not.  Not everyone has a great science education.  Oh well.  Not everyone is going to see the nonsense in creationism.  Sad, but true.  However, I can’t help but have a problem with Christians making themselves and other Christians look bad when they insult someone else’s intelligence while admitting at the same time that they, personally, have no clue what they are talking about.


7 Responses to “Don’t call someone ignorant while admitting you, yourself, are ignorant”

  1. Michael Brewer Says:


    Indeed your comment was not overlooked, but nor is it ignored. In reference to you underlining God said it was good not perfect, I have been doing a word study on the word “tobe” which is the word used in the Hebrew for “good.” It has since lead me into a study of God’s character and what God would call good. It has been time spent in order to give you a fair response.

    I thought that why I believed in the six literal days was clear and apparent when I had placed in parenthesis …And there was evening and there was morning, the third day… as quoted from the prior text. So I wasn’t as concerned with answering that as I was in considering God creating a perfect creation.

    Bobcu, with very little elaboration of his own states that, “…Scientists are no longer trying to prove evolution because it’s been accepted as fact for a very long time. They continue to make more discoveries to help them to better understand the history of life, and every day their discoveries add to the overwhelming evidence for evolution…” A theory as fact is a flawed idea, and he was using that to convince me that I should give up God and go with evolution.

    I confessed my ignorance with the full spectrum with science to establish that a) I am no expert, and b) that the little I do know should point to things greater than accepted theories. I used the atom for example because the nucleus of an atom is made of postively charged protons and neutrons with no charged, and are orbited by negatively charged electrons. If like magnetic fields repel one another (i.e. postive and postive, or negative and negative) why does an atom not utterly unravel or explode outward?

    Evolution points to natural answers. Naturally ‘A’ would come about because of ‘B.’ What happens when ‘2’ happens instead of ‘B’? We can’t hold a theory as factual until it is proven. Otherwise what makes science different from faith?

    His ignorance was in implying that since evolution “…is the strongest fact of science…” then other possibilities (God) should be left alone. His assertion that I should have faith like his -that is to say in science- because evolution has everything under control and will have it all figured out, is as foolish as me stating that the Bible should be studied as an authoratative source on micro physics. So yes there was an amount of ignorance in his attack and assertions.

    I, at least, am able to confess to my ignorance. Which brings me to this point. You are quick to point out how I was so pathetic in calling the poster out, yet you have nothing to say in his outright attack of my having faith in something other than evolution as an answer to the origin of all things. I believe you imply creationism is “nonsense.”

    “…I can’t help but have a problem with Christians making themselves and other Christians look bad when they insult someone else’s intelligence while admitting at the same time that they, personally, have no clue what they are talking about….”

    I think perhaps you will have a problem with Christians anyway. I never said I had no idea what I was talking about. I said that I don’t have a full handle on the full spectrum of science. I point out that his ignorance is in implying that I should rely on science instead of faith, and failing to realize that it likewise takes a lot of faith to rely on science. Perhaps my flaw is not out right saying this in my reply to him.

    But let us be honest here. You are going to find ways to be disgusted with Christians and Christianity for whatever reason you so choose.

    Attacking me is easy. If you have ever read more than two posts in my blog, I make attacking me very simple. My ignorance, my foolishness, etc. is not unknown, but at least I can be honest about it, my biases, and my intents. This makes us not really all that much different.



  2. Hey I put a post up I thought maybe you could help me with. Thanks 🙂

  3. Michael,

    I haven’t read your post in entirety, but I wanted to quickly submit that if YOU also read more than two of MY posts, you would see that I am a Christian. I would suggest you rethink your assumption that I will always find ways to be disgusted with Christians and Christianity. In fact, I find that rather insulting.

  4. Jon,

    I visited your site and read the post. I will try to reply to it when I get a bit more time. It’s been a busy week! 🙂

  5. Michael Brewer Says:


    Christian? Really? What kind (pratice, denomination)? What is your view of the Scriptures?

  6. A fairly typical one, minus my evolution-related opinions. I’ve blogged about it a bit on here already, but basically I was born and raised Lutheran (conservative Lutheran–not the more “liberal” type so to speak). I no longer attend the Lutheran church; I attend a non-denominational one. However, a lot of my viewpoints are still fairly traditional. I view the scriptures as being inspired by God, but I don’t believe everything in them is meant to be read literally. I think the creation story as told in Genesis is best viewed in light of the history and culture of the Near East.

  7. I look forward to seeing your post! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: