We present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Questioning the ‘scientific community’, which appears in the Marshall Independent of Marshall, Minnesota. We’ll give you a few choice excerpts from this letter, and we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:
I’ve just subscribed to “Scientific American.” So far, my first three issues are very interesting, both scientifically and philosophically because I have always had a strong interest in science, and in my later years, the “science of sciences” – theology.
This should be interesting. What does someone think of Scientific American if he subscribes out of an interest in theology? Let’s read on:
I have found that interwoven in all the neat science stuff there is a constant philosophical under-current in support of macro-evolution, old-age of the earth and universe, etc.
Egad! How profoundly disappointing that must be. We continue, as the letter-writer gives some examples:
[T]here is the December 2010 p. 62 in which they cannot understand why 67 million year old T Rex dinosaur bones should still have soft tissue like blood vessels and blood cells in it after such a long period. On p. 69 they note that science operates on a principle of parsimony – the simplest explanation for the data is assumed to be the correct one. So why not apply the principle and come to terms with the reality that the 67 million year radiometric generated figure is totally erroneous?
Good point! That paragraph continues:
And since they are dealing with carbon based organic material, I find it very strange they did not even mention use of carbon 14 dating methods on those parts. (What an embarrassment that could be to find out that T-Rex is far less than a million years old.)
Hey, yeah — they never use radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs! This letter-writer is truly astute. We’ll skip some other examples and give you one more excerpt from near the letter’s end:
We now know beyond a doubt that a segment of the “scientific community” has been lying to us about macro-evolution; which brings up the next question: What else are they lying to us about? A future letter may deal with the heliocentric vs. geocentric universe …
Your Curmudgeon can’t wait for that one! We’ve only copied a small portion of today’s letter, so click over to the Marshall Independent to read the whole thing.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.