Today’s letter-to-the-editor is Evolution vs. creationism: Neither disproves other. It appears in the Your Houston News, some kind of community newspaper in Conroe, Texas — that’s near Houston. 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:
I would like to chime in on the creationism vs. evolution theory controversy. My reason for this is due to vast amount of ignorance commonly displayed by both sides. Upfront, I must admit that I agree with Darwin. During the time of the demise of his days he rejected his own theory, as do I. That being said lets us take a look at the argument betwixt the two.
Ah yes — Darwin rejected his theory “during the time of the demise of his days.” This is the kind of letter we like. It starts crazy and then it gets crazier. You’ll see — but only if you have the courage to stay with us:
The Theory of Evolution concerns only a method, and an unproven one at that. Creationism centralizes more on who created rather than the how. This then is an issue of comparing apples to oranges. With the latter, a time span of six days is mentioned but shortly after that, in the Bible, God proclaims that a day is as a thousand years and vs. a versa [sic]. So time the time span between creating and evolution is a nonissue.
Six days could have been six thousand years. No problem! Let’s read on:
While many seem to think God waved his magic wand and poof, man appeared or that God merely spoke and all was created by his voice, and this may be. There is a scientific theory much stronger than that of evolution, to support the idea of Gods spoken word being the method of creation and that theory states that all matter is composed of sound waves.
Aaaargh!! The “sound wave” theory! We continue:
Look at that as the atoms of which we are all made, they have a tiny amount of matter in them but they spin so fast that together they, we, appear to be solid.
Aaaargh!! The “spin-solidity” theory. Here’s more:
Matter is proven to be made of waves, but are they sound waves? And even if they are, does this mean that God did not utilize at least some form of evolution? That is in essence one theory; maybe it is, maybe not. Then again, he could have spoke, saying, “Fish, evolve into man over the next million years.” There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that God definitely did not use evolution as a tool of creation. Again, maybe, maybe not.
Aaaargh!! The “maybe, maybe not” theory. Moving along:
The ancient Chaldeans wrote in the oldest writings existent that three persons from the 12th planet, Nibiru, created man by merging their genetic makeup with those of existing species here on earth. The writers of those tablets state that the source of information they have came from a lost civilization. While this can be argued that this is not scientific proof, on the other hand, it is most definitely a historical theory of the human creation.
Aaaargh!! The “Chaldean Nibiru” theory. Teach the controversy! Here’s another excerpt:
Evolution only concerns itself with the creation of animals and mankind. It completely ignores the issues of the creation of the planets, the sun, the orbits, time and the atoms of which we are all made. If evolution were 100 percent proven, it still would not disprove God nor would it disprove the creationist theory.
Hey — part of that paragraph makes sense. Or — having come this far — have we lost our mind? It’s too late to stop. On with the article:
The “Big Bang” theory assumes the pre-existence of particles in order to have the bang to begin with. It does not explain the source of those particles. The existence and influence of God is neither proven nor disproven by any of the theories.
Aaaargh!! The “pre-existence of particles” theory. And now we come to the end:
We should be able to conclude that the argument between these theories is at best one of comparing apples to oranges and that both could be right, wrong or a modified version of either or both. How is not an argument against who. Either way, it is not a one or the other issue. Evolution does not disprove creationism and creationism does not disprove evolution.
Is your head spinning, dear reader? Ours is. But maybe that’s because it’s made of sound waves and it’s trying to appear solid. It’s the Chaldean way.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.