Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Tribune Star of Terre Haute, Indiana. The title is Laboring in a rut of Darwinism, and one of our clandestine operatives brought it to our attention. 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:
[M]ay I once again attempt to clarify some positions which appear to be misinterpreted concerning the previous correspondence addressing inclusion of “intelligent design” in the curriculum in the public education system.
We seem to have arrived in the middle of a controversy. The letter-writer wants to clarify the situation about teaching intelligent design in public schools. He then refers to earlier correspondence, in one of which someone claimed that today’s letter-writer doesn’t “understand even the most basic tenet of science.” Oh dear, that seems rather judgmental. Today’s letter continues:
A careful review will reveal there is no condemnation of teaching scientific theory; however, we feel the curriculum is incomplete. It seems the general mindset in the scientific education community is that the biblical accounting of nature and our universe is a myth and is totally removed from consideration in their teaching.
Hmmmm. He doesn’t condemn teaching scientific theory, he just thinks it’s incomplete without Genesis. Okay, got it. Let’s read on:
Taking into account the Bible was the predominant, and in some cases the only record of scientific observations, from the first recorded events until the reformation (some 3,500 years) of the church occurred, the question I then pose is: “Do we just cast this fact aside as a myth” because the teacher does not want to believe or consider it in the classroom?
Good question! Do we cast it aside all those scientific observations in Genesis just because the teacher doesn’t believe it? We continue:
The vast majority of people around the world believe there is a Sovereign God, and present evidence of events and physical changes which are unexplainable with current scientific capabilities, and which they attribute to God.
He’s got a point. There’s lots of Oogity Boogity out there. Here’s more:
While you study these phenomena, seeking answers, if you totally exclude God from consideration, it’s an affront to the intellect of billions of people.
Hey, that’s another good point! Moving along:
This consideration would not be a return to dark ages as some claim, because the God defined in the Bible, is not only current but also defines our future, which one may ignore at their own peril.
God is up-to-date, dear reader, so why aren’t you? Another excerpt:
Gentlemen, it appears you are, unknowingly perhaps, laboring in a rut of Darwinism and its tentacles, unable to observe other theories which may have surprising answers.
Egad! Those gentlemen to whom the letter is addressed are not just in a rut, but also in the tentacles of Darwinism. That sounds really bad! On with the letter:
Our request is that you examine the two theories together … . Did you know, for instance, there have been counted more than 1,500 verses in the Bible which specifically describe the natural realm.
Observation of nature (science) begins with the first verse of the first book and chapter of the Bible, and whether you accept it or not, addresses the beginning of all scientific theory records.
There’s no denying it. This letter makes a strong case. And it gets stronger as it goes on:
Scientific knowledge from an intelligent design view, as recorded in the Bible and other writings, should be examined by both student and teacher alike. Creation is a myth only in the minds of those who refuse to examine it closely.
You gotta look closely. Closely! When you do, you’ll see that creationism is no myth. Then the letter ends with what seems to be a request that the state, or school board, or someone, should re-examine the issue so they’ll see things as the letter-writer sees them:
May I make it clear, gentlemen, what you have accomplished and what you are teaching are not the point of contention, but rather what you have not done, and are nor doing. With very little effort on your part, this situation can be corrected.
We confess, dear reader, today’s letter made a big impression on us.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.