Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Advocate located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It’s titled Letter about evolution challenged. 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:
He begins by referring to an earlier letter to which he objects, which is probably this. It was a good, competently-written letter from a student, responding to one we recently wrote about: Creationist Wisdom #246: Incredible Research, so we have a nice little series going here.
Naturally, today’s letter-writer finds fault with what the student wrote. He takes it apart, sentence by sentence, as we will do to today’s letter. At the start he says:
He [the writer of the earlier letter], like many evolutionists, is confused between adaptation and mutations that cause one animal to transform into another. I will explain by addressing several of his points.
Good start! It’s mutations that cause one animal to transform into another. Hey, that’s why our mutated dog is transforming into a raccoon, even as we speak. But you didn’t come here to learn about the Curmudgeon’s house pets, so let’s continue with today’s letter:
First he states that “evolution is a specific branch of science that deals with how life forms evolve to adapt.” This is incorrect, because adaptation is not evolution.
What’s he getting at? Let’s read on:
If I were to move my family to the equator, in a few generations my relatives would have much darker skin, adapting to the severity of the sun. They would not evolve because they would remain human beings.
Truly, today’s letter-writer has a firm grasp of the subject. In the next excerpt, the bracketed insertion is in the original letter, and it’s correct:
Next he states, “It [evolution] explains why bacteria become resistant to drugs.”
What’s wrong with that? Today’s letter continues:
While some medical professionals think bacteria “evolve,” this is not the only theory. Another theory is that the bacteria that are resistant become the dominant form. In other words, suppose some flu would kill humans with blue eyes, and brown-eyed people were immune. Eventually, the entire human race would be brown-eyed. Again, they remain human and have not evolved, but are simply a resistant form of human. Like bacteria.
But that’s not evolution — they’re still human! There’s been no transformation! At the end of that paragraph he adds:
Anyone see the movie “I Am Legend”?
Make of that what you will. Here’s more:
Next, he states, “It explains why mammoths are extinct.” I don’t see how failing to evolve caused them to go extinct. No one knows why mammoths died out. It could simply have been lack of food, or failure to adapt to the changing world around them, and we know adaptation is not evolution.
Are you still with us, dear reader? Okay, let’s move along:
Then he states, “It explains why people stand on two legs.” I am not sure how evolution explains this. According to evolution, some hominid evolved into us. Why the first human decided to stand on two legs rather than crawl like a chimp is more of an adaptive trait than that ancient hominid thinking how great it would be to stand on two legs. Besides, I would think evolving from hair-covered ape to hairless human is backward evolution given the frailty of our bodies when exposed to the climate.
We’ll ignore the implications regarding intelligent design. Here’s another excerpt:
All of these points I have given to show the confusion evolution has brought to science and to our world.
Yes, there’s definitely some confusion here. On with the letter:
Because there are so many weaknesses to the theory of evolution, it is impossible to defend. Thus, most teachers use the smoke and mirrors of adaptation to “prove” evolution, just as Darwin did with his finch beaks in the Galapagos.
Darwin was a master of smoke and mirrors. And now we come to the end:
Besides, you can’t have it both ways. Evolutionists’ theory has to work in all cases to be fact. Either animals are constantly mutating to new life forms, such as apes to humans, or the coelacanth has not changed in 250 million years. Which is it?
Great concluding point — Why are there still monkeys?
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.