Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Anderson Independent-Mail of Anderson, South Carolina. It’s titled Evolution at odds with Bible, science. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do, we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:
As a Bible-believing Christian and a licensed professional engineer with almost 47 years in private practice, my qualifications are similar to the most recent respondent.
We have no idea what earlier letter he’s referring to, but we note that as an engineer, today’s letter-writer is yet another example of the Salem Hypothesis, according to which engineering types — and that often includes computer scientists — have a tendency toward the creationist viewpoint. On with the letter:
I, like he, have both feet in this discussion. I state without apology, however, that both feet are on the same side of the discussion. Why do I take such a seemingly outrageous stance? There are two reasons:
The earlier letter apparently attempted to take a conciliatory approach to both religion and science. But our man today will not compromise! Here’s his first reason:
1. Evolutionary theology is at odds with every definitive Bible doctrine. Biblical Christianity is obviously based on the clear teachings of the Bible. Hebrew grammar and syntax do not permit the insertion of geologic time into the first chapter of Genesis. Neither does it permit human death before Adam’s sin. These are just two of the many incongruities.
Ah, he’s a young-Earther. His heart is pure. Here’s the second reason:
2. Evolutionary theology is at odds with every demonstrable law or principle of science. Science is based on observable and repeatable phenomena. No Darwinian or punctuationalist event has ever been observed. According to the laws of science, they cannot occur.
Right! No one has ever re-created the Earth’s biosphere in a lab. However, there are numerous Observed Instances of Speciation. We continue:
The so-called “horse series” has been debunked by the discovery of a modern horse fossil dated, by evolutionists, many thousands of years older than its descendants.
We’re not sure what fossil he’s talking about, but “many thousands of years” isn’t even an eye-blink on the evolutionary scale. Besides, what about all the other evolutionary series for which there is abundant evidence? But regarding horses (or anything else), it’s not at all remarkable for an ancestral species to continue to survive at the same time that some new branch of the family also exists. It sounds like the letter-writer is asking “Why are there still monkeys?” For more information, TalkOrigins has a good article on Horse Evolution. On with the letter:
Is Creationism divisive? Yes. Jesus was divisive (Matthew 10:34). Those who “accept Jesus” but reject His plain teachings have compromised, and are just “playing church” (Matthew 15:9).
Divisiveness is good! Okay. And now we come to the end:
Perhaps I will be able to address human endogenous retroviruses in my next letter. I would be happy to demonstrate from the Bible and science.
We’ll be looking forward to that next letter. But it probably won’t be as good as this one.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.