In reviewing our Creationist Wisdom series, we see that we’ve discussed letters published in that newspaper in #71, #51, #44, and #35. Fredericksburg is either a peculiar place, or the editor has a strange sense of humor. Anyway, we’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:
Christians have no problem with pure science pronouncements as reported by scientists of the past, such as Newton and Kepler.
“Pure science pronouncements”? We’re in for a bumpy ride. Let’s read on:
What some of us have a problem with are “scientific theories,” such as Darwinian evolution, that are taught as science in our public schools.
We’ve heard this tune before, haven’t we? Let’s stay with it a bit longer to see if there’s anything different here:
This so called “molecule-to-man” theory is without solid scientific basis. It cannot pass the test of being pure science.
At times like this, we think we know what it’s like to work as an attendant in the bed-ridden ward of the Alzheimer’s clinic — walking from patient to patient and taking note of which ones have soiled the sheets. This one has definitely done so. His letter continues:
Science is “observation and classification of facts, especially with the establishment of verifiable general laws.” Darwin’s theory doesn’t pass this test.
Yet another genius with a dictionary. Here’s more:
Evolution or changes within species are not at issue. They are observable and are considered fact. Changes from one species to another are the issue. The fossil record does not support the theory of one species changing to another, such as reptile to bird. If Darwin’s theory were true, the world should be full of “transitional” fossils, but there aren’t any.
O Lordy, it’s the micro-yes, macro-no mantra again. Moving along:
Darwin noted the lack of this evidence himself, and this lack remains today. A problem has been identified with every transitional fossil that has ever been proposed.
Yes, yes — not even Darwin was a Darwinist. Please, letter-writer, can’t you give us something that’s even marginally new? We’ll give this letter one more chance:
God does not need billions of years to create things. He speaks, and it happens. The concept of time is for us.
Aha! Our suffering has been rewarded. Now we’re getting some solid creation science. Here’s another excerpt:
When Adam and Eve first saw each other, they each might have appeared to be about 20 years old, even though they were only a few days old. When God first created them, they appeared to be thousands of times older than they really were.
This sounds like some kind of Garden of Eden porn for creationists, so they can lustfully imagine the newly-created Adam & Eve examining each other with — ahem! — growing curiosity. But perhaps we’re being judgmental. Maybe it’s just our old friend, the Omphalos hypothesis. On with the letter:
By the same logic, the Earth could appear to be many times older than it really is. We don’t need billions of years to support creation as described in the book of Genesis. All we need is faith.
Yeah! We don’ need no stinkin’ billions of years. All we need is faith!
Well spoken. And now we come to the letter’s end:
We don’t claim religion to be science; and Darwinian evolution, with its requirement for billions of years, is not science, either.
[Writer's name and city can be seen in the original.]
We need to make a note to ourselves: Stay away from Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.