Linguistics Undermines Scriptural Truth

Having vanquished the unholy proponents of chemistry, we may turn our attention to the next great bastion of falsehood. I am starting another new organization: Linguistics Undermines Scriptural Truth (also known as Scriptural Linguistics Upholds Truth). Our aim is simple: to prove that just as chemistry and biology make no sense without God, the same holds true for linguistics.

This is not simply a question of upholding the truth of the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel, however important that might be. Skeptics are quick to object that the story cannot be taken literally, pointing to alleged conundrums of logic such as the problem of how husbands and wives communicated after the confusion of tongues. What these willfully ignorant critics miss is the obvious fact that, even within the same country and linguistic context, husbands and wives clearly speak different languages that hinder communication anyway. In our view, it is most unlikely that husbands and wives noticed any difference after God confused the tongues.

Skeptics also object that languages have continued to evolve since the time of the Tower of Babel. But this is mere microevolution. We sneer at anyone who claims to speak French, or Italian, or Romanian, or Portugese. They speak Latin, and their claims to speak distinct languages are mere attempts by the godless regimes of these nations to undermine the truths that we courageously uphold.

Our primary focus is on the idea of irreducible information contained in languages, not only semantically but grammatically. Is it really conceivable that human beings, who (since the Fall) are naturally lazy, developed on their own a complex grammar such as that found in German, or that they invented a language with multiple tones such as Cantonese or Hausa? The trend is clearly towards simplification. The complexity of language can only have come about through divine intervention.

The godless linguists, on the other hand, would have us believe that language can come about in stages and develop from a simple proto-language to a complex language with all its grammatical structures and extensive vocabulary.

But we will – sorry, what’s that? Yes, dada is here. Sorry, that was my young daughter. She keeps interrupting me at crucial moments like this. Go find MAMA, MAMA. Now, where was I? Oh yes, languages simply CANNOT develop in stages, and more than human beings can. Each individual language, like each individual human being, must be brought into existence fully formed.

You can, of course, guess what our next battle will be – yes, taking on the secular reproductionists!

  • TomS

    There is more than parody to this.I have met creationists who have argued that languages have “de”volved – bringing up the example of Sanskrit with many cases to the noun going “downhill” to English with just one. Seriously.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X