Today’s letter-to-the-editor doesn’t have much originality to it, but it’s got a nice collection of creationist silliness. It has a provocative title too: Disproven theories don’t belong in schools, and it appears in the Green Bay Press-Gazette of Green Bay, Wisconsin . We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and as we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:
This is in response to Charles Haynes’ commentary (“Religious attacks of evolution have no place in science class,” Sept. 7). He should concentrate instead on keeping disproven, unscientific theories out of science class.
Feisty beginning! But he’s got a point — no one wants “disproven, unscientific theories” taught in science class. Unfortunately … well, we don’t want to spoil it for you. In due course you’ll see what the letter-writer has in mind.
The Charles Haynes item he refers to is Religious attacks of evolution have no place in science class. It’s very good, and it seems to have enraged today’s letter-writer. Here it comes:
Darwin studied scientific micro-evolution involving variations within a species. His theory (macro-evolution) assumes that life started from non-life, and variations can change one species into another species. Macro-evolution is not scientific because it has never been proven or observed in nature.
That’s the “micro-macro mambo,” debunked here: Common Creationist Claims Confuted — hereinafter CCCC. Let’s read on:
His theory is disproved by the Law of Biogenesis — spontaneous generation is impossible, life can arise only from other life, and life only perpetuates its own kind.
Hey — we haven’t seen that one for quite a while. Apparently it’s still making the rounds of the creationist websites. That’s also debunked in our CCCC. We continue:
His theory is also disproved by the Cambrian Explosion — a period when virtually all major animal forms appeared suddenly without transitional forms preceding them.
Oh goodie — the legendary Cambrian Explosion. We debunked that one a couple of years ago (see The Mystery of the Cambrian “Explosion”). Here’s more:
Darwin admitted that transitional fossils (between two species) needed to be found for his theory to be true. Today, with billions of fossils found, not one is transitional.
Aaaargh!! That too is debunked in CCCC. Moving along:
The examples in textbooks (Nebraska Man, Java Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man, and Lucy) have been determined to be frauds. Yet they are still in textbooks and taught in schools.
We discussed Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man in CCCC. They’re not in textbooks. The others aren’t frauds. Nebraska Man wasn’t a fraud either — it was a brief mistake that was corrected so quickly it probably never got into the textbooks. But it lives on at creationist websites.
Here’s the letter’s end, and it appears that even after writing it, the letter-writer is still furious about the Charles Haynes article:
Mr. Haynes, start protecting us from blatant lies instead of from the truth.
So there you are, dear reader. Be careful, because there’s a very angry creationist somewhere in or around Green Bay.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.