Today’s letter appears in the Anderson Independent-Mail of Anderson, South Carolina. It’s titled Teach children how to think, not what to think. 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. Here we go:
I would generally agree with the respondent to my last letter that the disagreement between evolutionism and creationism is a debate between science and philosophy. But we would certainly disagree on which side has the support of science and which side is based purely on philosophical and metaphysical speculations. The scientific method is based on events in nature that can be observed by the five senses, measured, documented and tested.
The letter-writer starts out sounding somewhat reasonable, but don’t be fooled. These things can suddenly change — as we shall soon see:
The occurrence of matter from nothing, living creatures from non-living matter, complex creatures from simple creatures or man from ape-like creatures all violate the known laws or principles of science. Yet they are presented as facts in our schools, colleges and the news and entertainment media. These are all philosophical assumptions with no scientific basis.
See there? Don’t let yourself be fooled by a reasonable opening. It’s rather like the guy who starts out by saying: “I don’t mean to give offense, but … .” And then comes the deluge. Anyway, now we know what we’re dealing with. Let’s read on:
Each and every example presented by my respondent as supposed evidence of evolution can be refuted from the fields of science (although not in a 250-word letter) without any reference to any religious literature.
We’ve searched, but we can’t locate that earlier letter. It doesn’t matter, really. Today’s letter-writer is one of those who dismisses all evidence for evolution, so whatcha gonna do? Our only option is to sit back and enjoy the show. The letter continues:
The debate is indeed a pointless undertaking if we do not care that our children are being taught pseudoscientific propaganda, instead of observable and verifiable data. Our children should be taught how to think and not what to think.
Great, huh? This guy thinks that the science side of the debate is “pseudoscientific propaganda” while his Noah’s ark stuff is based on “observable and verifiable data.” He’s got the jargon right, but … well, he is what he is. Here’s one last excerpt:
Furthermore, I must chide my respondent for assuming that I am too ignorant to understand or accept his “evidence.”
Although we haven’t seen the earlier letter to which he’s referring, that unknown writer has our vote.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.