This is a big day for creationism at the Star Press of Muncie, Indiana. We found a second letter-to-the-editor which should interest you. It’s Creationism fills in the gap. 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:
In Brad King’s column of Feb. 19, he says we should teach science and not creationism.
He’s referring to this: Creationism has no place in public schools. Today’s letter continues:
OK, but what does science teach about where we came from?
That’s a fair question. The letter-writer proceeds to tell us what science teaches:
The universe was either created out of nothing or something always existed.
Well … okay. Let’s read on:
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the universe was created out of energy. In the beginning, all this energy was compressed into a very small area called a singularity that exploded in the Big Bang creating the universe. Simple.
That’s one way to express the First Law. It’s good enough for a letter-to-the-editor. We continue:
But wait. Everything has to have a cause and effect. If the singularity is infinite and had been hanging around forever, what caused it to explode in the Big Bang? We have the same problem with the creation of life.
Those are two very different questions, and even if the First Law were a problem for the Big Bang, it doesn’t apply to the creation of life. But let’s not get bogged down over that. Here’s more:
If Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation, life from nonlife, is impossible, where did life come from?
Pasteur proved no such thing. We discussed that before in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, and we’ll repeat here what we said:
That so-called “law” which allegedly disproves evolution is a childish misunderstanding of Louis Pasteur’s work on spontaneous generation. This distortion of Louis Pasteur’s work is found only in creationist literature. Pasteur demonstrated that sealing food from airborne contamination would end the supposed “spontaneous generation” of mold and such. This has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution or with the ultimate origin of living things. Some fool or freak or fraud posted a crazed misinterpretation of Pasteur’s work at a creationist website and it’s been endlessly repeated ever since. Also, see Abiogenesis FAQs: Articles on the Origin of Life.
And that brings us to the end of today’s letter:
I have no problem with evolution. Once we have the beginning, science is doing a good job of explaining how the world developed. But it can’t explain the very beginning. That’s where creationism comes in.
That was interesting. The letter-writer accepts evolution (or says he does) but he still depends on the God of the gaps as his answer to unknowns — leaving them still unknown.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.