Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears at the website of Today, published by MediaCorp, which says it’s “Singapore’s leading media company.” The letter is titled Creationism still part of the evolution debate. 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:
There are problems with the idea that creationism has never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary thinking.
Really? Let’s see what that “intellectual challenge” might be:
First, creationists do not pose a threat to scientific thinking. The founders of modern science and many modern scientists are creationists who study an orderly, non-random universe.
Yeah, we’ve seen that one before about the founders of modern science. It’s true that Isaac Newton didn’t know about the theory of evolution, but he didn’t use the “theory” of six-day creation or Noah’s Ark in his work. As for present-day creationists — somehow they all seem to be working at creation museums, bible colleges, or a certain “think tank” in Seattle. Let’s read on:
Dr Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School has remarked that almost all of biology over the last 100 years has proceeded independent of evolution.
We Googled for that and found it everywhere, but we never found the source. It’s probably phoney (or out of context) because it’s obviously absurd. We continue:
In fact, evolution hinders medical discovery. The writer himself highlighted the crisis in traditional evolutionary thinking, which has been so dogmatic as to not even consider creationism as a viable option.
Hey, that’s a new claim. For authority, the letter-writer cites himself. Here’s more:
Whilst science comprises experimental and historical types, the issue of beginnings and the past falls within the latter and should not be accorded the same authority as the former.
Right. Historical science is useless. There’s no way to know what caused Meteor Crater in Arizona, because we weren’t there to see how it happened. Moving along:
Natural selection and mutation do not equate to evolution. The former is a principle also recognised by creationists. It might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. One cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.
That’s great! We used it for our title. Skipping a bit, we arrive near the end where we come to this:
There are many questions for evolutionists:
Okay, what are the questions? Here ya’ go:
How did life originate? Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment, with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed long age of the universe, not one average-sized functional protein would have formed.
He’s got more questions:
So how did bacteria form? How did the DNA code, biochemical pathways, multicellular life and gender all originate?
Good, huh? We’ll wrap it up with the best questions of all:
From where do natural laws come? From where does logic come? These are non-material stuff but often taken for granted.
So there you are. And remember: Evolution is false because one cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.