WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Evolution theory far from truth, which appears in the Montgomery Advertiser of Montgomery, Alabama (population 346,528 in 2000). “Our Vision: With boldness and courage, we provide vital information that enlightens and enriches everyone.”
We’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the excerpted paragraphs. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:
At one time I did, as Pastor Evans currently does, kneel and worship at the altar of evolution. However the “theory of evolution” is so named because it is contrary to the basic tenet of the scientific method, namely being reproducible. This theory has never been and never will be replicable by scientific method.
We had to search around for it, but we think the letter-writer is responding to this: Letter sterling example, in which Pastor Evans discusses — and actually praises — the Clergy Letter Project. We can imagine how that might upset some folks in Montgomery.
Regarding the letter-writer’s announcement of the “basic tenet of the scientific method, namely being reproducible,” well … okay, if he says so. Let’s forget all that we know about ice ages, supernovae, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. The Big Bang too. What’s left to science after we apply the letter-writer’s “basic tenet” — your kid’s chemistry set? What you’re seeing here is creationism’s crazed claim that the past is unknowable, except through scripture. See: Creationism and Science.
Let’s read some more of today’s letter:
Daily more credible scientific minds are bringing forth critical issues with Darwin’s theory of evolution and producing evidences where Intelligent Design must be considered by necessity.
Yes, we’re very much aware of all the “critical issues” that continue to ooze forth from creationist websites. We continue:
Due to this, the letter’s statement [he means the Clergy Letter’s statement] that “the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” is inaccurate. Critical issues with radiocarbon 14 dating still exist. Dating of materials recovered from the Mt. Saint Helen’s volcano in the 1980s return carbon dating of thousands of years. A small problem, one might say, since we know the event occurred approximately 30 years ago. The field of genetics also wreaks havoc with this theory.
As for the wild assertion that genetics “wreaks havoc” with Darwin’s theory, the letter-writer cites no evidence for that, nor can he, so we’ll just skip it and give you some more from his letter:
Issues such as irreducible complexity can never be explained through evolution. This is where, if a single critical element is removed from the item in question, then the item no longer functions. Blood clotting is one example.
Another Michael Behe fan. We’ve discussed Behe’s well-debunked claims before, so won’t waste time on them here. Moving along:
Darwin’s own critical analysis of the Cambrian explosion is still unexplained 150 years later. No, the theory of evolution is far from the truth.
Invoking our new principle of “Stultissimus!” [the stupidest!], which is being used for the first time here, we’ll also skip over any argument that tries to use Darwin as an authority for criticizing Darwin. And now we come to the end:
On a more critical note, if Pastor Evans is willing to eliminate the first 11 chapters of Genesis as fact, what basis does he use to justify salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ as factual?
[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]
If the letter-writer’s world depends on the scientific accuracy of the six-day creation account in Genesis, then he’s got problems. He’s worldless, and that might be the worst problem of all.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.