Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Republic of Columbus, Indiana. The letter is titled Biblical creationism not unscientific. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:
When someone mentions biblical creationism with Darwin’s theory of evolution, we can only assume they are referring to the general theory of evolution developed from Darwin’s studies and conclusions.
Ah yes, the “general theory.” It’s much more robust than the pipsqueaking special theory. We continue:
After all, while Darwin’s theory of adaptation, evolution, within a family is on par with Einstein’s theory of relativity (that is backed up by scientific facts), such cannot be said of the general theory of evolution.
Okay, the letter-writer is talking about what creationists call micro- and macro-evolution. He’s doing the ol’ micro-macro mambo, but using what he imagines to be classier terminology. That’s silly enough to be entertaining, so we’ll read on:
When this distinction is made, biblical creationism is no more assertion than the general theory of evolution. Both seek to explain something that no man was there to witness in view of the evidence before us.
No witnesses? By golly — that’s amazing! We continue:
The reality is that when compared to what we know from the scientific realm, the Bible comes much closer to explaining what we see than amoeba-to-man evolution.
Only a fool would deny it! Here’s more:
The flood described in Genesis 6-9 in Noah’s day does a much better job of explaining the strange order of geological strata and the sudden explosion of life in the fossil record than modern evolutionary geology.
Yes, much better! Moving along:
Many other examples are available for those really interested. The point is that neither biblical creationism nor the general theory of evolution is more or less scientific than the other. Both are an attempt to explain what happened long ago based on the evidence we see today.
“Both are an attempt”? Yes, and these are a sentence, but let’s not quibble now. Here’s the conclusion:
Neither of them can be “proved” based simply on what we observe in the world around us. That being the case, what is wrong with presenting both sides of the coin using a scientific approach?
So there you are. Darwin’s general theory is equal to Genesis. Teach them both.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.