Knots Of Time

 A Snippit About that Meme 

It was one of the  oddest cases that Dr. Philbine had ever encountered.

The patient was hysterically excited and displayed a deeply passionate conviction that the world owed him a debt of gratitude that should be boundless and immeasurable.

According to him, he had become the savior of the world by employing  a device that permitted him to travel back in time. In and itself, he was not even terribly proud of this remarkable accomplishment, which he at least, was convinced was true. 

No, he was instead obsessed with his glorious success in that he had gone back to Vienna in 1909 and there murdered a teenaged artist named Adolf Hitler.

When asked why this should be considered to be a positive accomplishment, he began to thrash about and scream, "Hitler! Hitler! Don't you understand, you  moronic jackasses!" And much more of the same.

When the staff continued to refuse to praise him for this bizarre "achievement" the patient withdrew into himself and became largely silent, only muttering  incoherently to himself from time to time.

The case took a very peculiar turn when agents of the FBI turned up and insisted upon interviewing the man.

Dr. Philbine declared that this was not possible due to the severe responses his patient had to being agitated with any reference to this mysterious artist. He demanded to know exactly why the FBI could possibly be interested in this case.

The agents indicated to him that there was in fact a device which, when activated, had returned an individual to 1909. This lead to inquiries to the Vienna police, who discovered that there had indeed been an obscure young artist named Adolf Hitler who was found shot to death in 1909.

The case had never been solved.

Sadly, subsequent attempts to determine why the patient had committed this bizarre act only served to drive him deeper into his delusional internal world. He was never charged with murder because of the unavoidable conundrum of can you charge someone with murder if the victim was murdered over a century before the killer was even born? This was a legal issue which neither the judicial system of the United States nor that of Vienna were prepared to undertake.

The Butler And The Book

I have been thinking about how to effectively explain the difference between the way that professional creationists approach reality and the way that the same is approached by a rationalist. Having a certain taste for BBC murder mysteries, I think the best way would be to look at the careers of two chief inspectors.

Let us begin with Chief Inspector Creationist.  On his first day in his new position, the sergeant assigned to assist him enters and declares, “Here’s our first case, sir. A man has been found murdered.  Forensics has just arrived at the scene. We can be there in a few minutes to gather evidence.”

Chief  Inspector Creationist: No need. It’s obvious who committed the crime.

Sergeant: Excuse me me sir?  You don’t even know the victim’s name. How could you possibly solve the crime?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: There is only one possible answer, Sergeant. The butler did it.

Sergeant: But we don’t even know if there is a butler, sir!

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Of course there is. The butler always commits the murder.

Sergeant:  How could you know that sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: The Book, Sergeant. Haven’t you ever read the Book? It has all the answers to everything.

Sergeant:  Don’t you think we should at least go take a look at the scene?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: (Exasperated) If you must, do so. But I shall not waste my time, for the crime has been solved...by the Book.

Later that day the sergeant returns. The conversation resumes.

Sergeant:  Well, sir, it’s quite an interesting case. We do know however, that the butler could not possibly have committed the crime because there was no butler.

Chief  Inspector Creationist:  Don’t be foolish, man!  If there was no butler, he cannot have committed the crime.

Sergeant: Well, yes. That’s exactly my point. The family was on the dole. They were quite poor. They live in a very small flat. They could not possibly afford a part time cleaning lady, much less a butler! 

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Sergeant, I really wonder how you possibly could have attained your rank. Simply ignoring the facts is no way to conduct an investigation!

Sergeant: But these are the facts, sir.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Is it really necessary for me to repeat myself? The Book says the butler did it. Therefore the butler did it. The Book is infallible, inerrant, and literal. 

The only possible conclusion is that there was a butler and that he is the guilty party.

Which leads to another question. How could a poor family afford a butler? Obviously, they couldn’t. Therefore they were somehow forcing the man to be their servant. And now we have a motive!

Sergeant:  Sir?

Chief  Inspector Creationist: Don’t you see it, man? The only way they could force a butler to serve them without pay is blackmail. They were blackmailing the butler to be their servant.  Finally fed up with it, he turned to murder in order to gain his freedom and revenge.

Sergeant: However, sir, the wife has already admitted that she couldn’t stand the victim’s snoring and smothered him to death in his sleep.

Chief  Inspector Creationist: So she’s covering for the butler. Perhaps he’s blackmailing her. Unless she is his lover...

As the investigation proceeds, Chief  Inspector Creationist closes all ports of entry and sets officers watching every bus station, train station, and other method of transportation searching for the butler.  When the murdering manservant is still not captured, he issues an international alert to Interpol. The butler must be found!

Years later, at his retirement party,  Chief  Inspector Creationist bemoans the fact that he spent his entire career hunting for that wicked man and never found him. In fact, he never took another case, having devoted all his efforts to solving the first and only crime ever presented for his investigation.  But he does not feel that he has failed in his duty, after all, he did defend the Book.

As for Chief Inspector Rationalist; on his first case, he went to the crime scene. He examined the forensic reports. He checked out the alibis and motives of every suspect.  He developed numerous hypotheses as to who was in fact guilty, discarding them when the evidence contradicted his conclusions.. In the end, a suspect confessed in the face of overwhelming evidence. Chief Inspector Rationalist and his sergeant moved on to solve many cases.

(A few of them even involved a butler.)