Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Courier-News of Aurora, Illinois. It’s titled Still much to debate about theory of evolution. 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:
To claim that creationism is a matter of faith, while evolution is sound science, is to ignore the numerous questions left insufficiently answered or sidestepped by modern evolutionary theory:
That’s great — the letter-writer has determined that creationism isn’t faith and evolution isn’t science because evolution has unanswered questions. Here are some of those questions:
How can evolution account for the tremendous amount of intricacy in the universe?
Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:
Where is the evidence that new genetic information can be randomly added to an organism’s genetic code?
Aaaargh!! We’ve been posting about the “evolution can’t produce new information” issue — see Is Convergent Evolution Explainable?, which discusses a good example of how it happens, and which links to two others. We continue with the letter-writer’s profound questions:
Where are the innumerable transitional forms that Darwin himself argued would be a prerequisite to the adoption of his theory?
Aaaargh!! See List of transitional fossils. Here’s more:
When the creationist raises such questions or dares to posit his own theory, he is silenced and censored. After all, to quote Walter Heffron, who commented on this matter earlier (Letters, Oct. 17): “Creationism is based on religious faith, which is not debatable.”
Here’s a link to that earlier letter: Creationism a matter of faith, so nothing to debate. The title sums it up. Moving along with today’s letter:
Creationists are deeply concerned with discovering the truth of human origins through scientific method.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Another excerpt:
Merely because the creationist comes to an alternative conclusion does not mean that his views should be disqualified from discussion. [Skipping an Aristotle quote.] If we truly desire the truth, should we not allow intellectual honest debate over a controversy as important as this?
Aaaargh!! Until the creationists have actual, verifiable evidence for their Oogity Boogity, there can’t be a debate. On with the letter:
Why, then, are evolutionists so intent upon silencing the opposition? Do they have something to hide? [Aaaargh!!] Or do they refuse to accept the creationist’s argument because of their personal preferences rather than scientific objections?
What personal preference does the letter-writer have in mind? You’ve already guessed it:
Perhaps many evolutionists would agree with Dr. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy and law and New York University: “I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
That’s the letter-writer’s explosive revelation of the deep secret that evolution is trying to hide? Well, now we come to the end:
As much as I respect Heffron’s opinion [he’s the earlier letter-writer], I must say: The debate is far from over.
How can the debate be “far from over” when it can’t even get started? As the earlier letter said, there’s nothing to debate.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.