We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Why not debate both sides of evolution, creationism?, which appears in the Asheville Citizen-Times, published in Asheville, North Carolina. We’ll copy most of today’s letter, but we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. We’ll also add some bold for emphasis, plus our usual Curmudgeonly commentary between paragraphs. Here we go:
The AC-T [initials for this newspaper] editorial board claims there’s only one side to the issue in “Public schools should teach scientific fact, not religion.” Darwin’s theories monopolize America’s classrooms, yet the AC-T says that’s insufficient. Academic freedom is suppressed and leading scientists refuse to debate. No wonder the U.S. is 17th worldwide in science literacy.
Yeah, no wonder! Let’s read on:
Darwin believed one species could become another. That is scientifically impossible in my opinion.
Most impressive. We continue:
Changes do occur within a particular species, as any dog breeder can prove. Crossbreeding or interbreeding produces hybrids only of the same kind.
Right! That Darwin guy must have been an idiot. Here’s more:
Darwin knew nothing of DNA, which functions as a software program designed by a programmer with unlimited intelligence.
Oooooooooooh! A “programmer with unlimited intelligence.” Blessed be the Programmer! Moving along:
Darwin had no knowledge of the intricate nanotechnology that exists within cells, or of their irreducible complexity.
Behe has a convert. Another excerpt:
Galileo’s faith in an active Creator produced his scientific discoveries.
You must admit, dear reader, that was among the best claims we’ve ever seen in one of these letters. On we go:
And it was religious skeptic/secular humanist Kurt Vonnegut (1922 – 2007) who said: “Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.”
Kurt Vonnegut? Bwahahahahaha!!
And now we come to the end:
Open science proves God’s creation to be more marvelous than Darwin envisioned. Darwin’s prophetic statement that future scientists would be able to “view both sides of the question with impartiality” is still premature.
[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]
That was a great letter. We have nothing to add.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.