Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in Star Press of Muncie, Indiana. The letter is titled Creationism and science. 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:
Exposing public school students to the creationist view of origins doesn’t strike me as being an effort to promote religion. If students are going to be taught about origins, why should they not be given all sides on the issue?
By golly, that’s your Curmudgeon’s position too! Why shouldn’t students be taught our theory that life on Earth was designed by the Blob from Betelgeuse? The letter continues:
Many object that creationism is not science. Since scientific facts and evidence are offered in support of creationism, one cannot rightly claim that creationism is unscientific.
Yes! We see evidence being discussed all the time at creationist websites, so it must be scientific. Let’s read on:
And contrary to common belief, creation science does make predictions, and certain tenets of creationism are testable.
Indeed. Our favorite example is The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism. We continue:
If students are permitted to learn about the fossil record and why it supports creationism rather than evolution, how does that undermine science education?
Great question! Here’s more:
If students are permitted to hear about Einstein’s theory of relativity, which tells us that space, time, matter and energy all have a finite beginning (as the biblical creation account declares), how does that endanger the scientific enterprise?
Another great question! Moving along:
People who reject evolution are often wrongly accused of being anti-science. There are many scientists who reject evolution. Are they anti -science, too? If naturalistic evolution were a clearly established scientific fact, no scientist would reject it.
We could respond by saying that no scientist worthy of that label rejects evolution, but then — when confronted with the dysfunctional behavior of creationists with science degrees — we’d find ourselves ensnared in the No true Scotsman fallacy. We could handle it, but the letter-writer is rather slick. Another excerpt:
According to Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicis [sic] and author, there is a mounting “body of scientific evidence that confirms the accuracy and reliability of the first 11 chapters of the Bible.”
Ah,yes … Hugh Ross. And now we come to the end:
All truth is God’s truth. The Bible reveals truth, and science reveals truth. When correctly interpreted, the Bible and the facts of nature agree. And that’s as it should be, because God is the author of both.
A powerful ending to a powerful letter.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.