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:
David Pearson’s Dec. 11 letter (“Scientists respect Darwin”) brings up some interesting points that are at the crux of the age-old question of whether God is a creator or we humans are the result of a cosmic accident.
This is Pearson’s letter. He provocatively said: “Religion is based on blind faith and has nothing to do with science, reason or logic.” That triggered the response from today’s letter-writer.
Let’s read on, as we’re told about the “age-old question” — or perhaps we should call it the age-old false dichotomy — cosmic accident or God:
The starting point of the cosmic accident viewpoint is that at some time in the primeval past, there was a spark in a pool of water that initiated chemical reactions that built the essential amino-acid building blocks of life.
Ah yes, the Kaboom! theory. Hey, it’s so much faster than that sluggish six-day creation stuff. We continue:
Since then, there have been many credible scientists who, while not religious, are at a loss to explain the chasm between the staggeringly remote possibility of these incredibly complex molecules, which are key to life, arising by chance, as opposed to them being what they really are, a digital code.
The “staggeringly remote possibility.” Oooo! A digital code! Ooooo! Oooooo! Here’s more:
How do we have a design without a designer, or a code without a planner? Random chance? Perhaps, but it does not seem rational to think that complexity comes from randomness. The scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves that notion, because it proves that order disintegrates down into disorder.
Lots of creationist goodies in that one paragraph! Design requires designer, code requires planner, no complexity from randomness. And as a year-end bonus — the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is terrific!
Darwin did not prove evolution, he only observed microevolution within species, not macroevolution between species.
Micro-Macro. This letter has it all! Another excerpt:
He put forth his “theory” of evolution. In fact, he stated that he hoped that future discoveries in the fossil record would reveal transitional life forms between species to prove his theory. The lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record is still the dilemma faced by the evolutionists. One of the most notable of these scientists was Stephen J. Gould, who said …
It doesn’t get any better. The word “theory” in scare quotes, no transitional fossils, and a mined quote. The only thing missing is a partridge in a pear tree. Here’s more:
The bottom line of this age-old controversy of God creating mankind versus chance evolution is that most of us do not want to be in any way responsible to someone who made and created us, because it infers responsibility. So, we would rather believe that we are cosmic accidents, and that when we die, it’s over.
No responsibility! Where’s that welfare check? On with the letter:
There is absolutely no purpose in life if you take this line of thought to the extreme of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”
Right. But there’s a whole Ark-load of purpose in life if you literally believe in Noah’s Flood, according to which a deity can wipe us all out on a divine whim — maybe because some long ago ancestor got conned by a snake. Oh yeah — there’s a purposeful vision of life!
Does today’s letter-writer have any more creationist goodies for us?
If so, we are just brute beasts, just a little higher than the next life form. Why do we have emotions, and a conscience? Why do we have feelings like love? Why do we respond to art, music and sunsets? Why can we communicate our thoughts through speech? These are not necessary if we are accidental.
Brute beasts, no conscience, no love. Why respond to sunsets? We’re all just kinda grunting and groping around. Oook, oook!
And now we come to the end:
Did Darwin really prove anything? Not really, only that finches beaks adapt to different environments. Which is it? Creation or evolution?
[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]
There you are, dear reader. Which is it?
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.