Creationist Wisdom — Example 46

WE present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from two — yes, two! — letters-to-the-editor appearing in the New York Post. Both letters are about the excessively hyped but still fascinating discovery, Darwinius masillae.

The Post‘s letters column is titled: A DEBATE AS OLD AS TIME. We’ll copy today’s letters almost in their entirety, omitting from each the writer’s name and city, and we’ll add our Curmudgeonly commentary between the excerpted paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis.

Here comes the first letter:

The fossil Ida is being used by scientists as an assault on a gullible public (“Meet Your Dear Old Aunti ‘Ida,’ ” May 20).

An “assault.” Wow! Let’s read on:

One fossil does not represent a transitional species, any more than the remains of a two-headed snake represents a transition of snakes from one head to two heads. They’re simply abortions of nature.

You’d need more than one fossil to represent a species, and you’d need many transitional aberrations that couldn’t survive to show an evolutionary process was going on.

We love it! A strikingly impressive transitional fossil is produced, and the creationist response is: (1) it’s just a freak; (2) one isn’t enough; and (3) a real transitional would be something that couldn’t survive.

While you’re grappling with those concepts, we’ll continue with the end of the letter:

Ida represents the fanciful speculations of a scientific community determined to publicize its biased agenda.

Okay, that settles the matter. Now here’s the second letter:

I am a loyal fan of The Post, but the creation/evolution debate is one issue you clearly do not understand. Your coverage of the latest “missing link,” Ida, the lovely little lemur, is dramatic evidence of this charge. Everything in your articles about Ida took the opinions of the scientists promoting her to be sacrosanct.

Where should the Post have gone for opinions? Perhaps they should have interviewed some wino living under a bridge. Let’s move along:

The authors of these articles accept these opinions as facts, but they’re just the opinions of devout evolutionists, and one day they will be proven to be completely worthless.

Maybe so. We’ll report it when it happens. Here’s the final excerpt:

Don’t let yourselves be spoon-fed the endless lies of evolutionists. The objections to evolutionary theory are very real and very powerful.

Right. Real and powerful. Very powerful. And we thank the writer for his views.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

One response to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 46

  1. Steve Bartholomew

    I LOVE the 2nd letter … I wrote it! (but I didn’t know that the Post had published it – thanks for informing me!)