One of our far-flung network of clandestine operatives informed us of today’s letter-to-the-editor, which appears in the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky. It’s titled Evolution as fact. 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:
I was glad to see the article “Teach evolution as the fact it is,” then I read the article!
He’s probably talking about Teach evolution as the fact it is, a splendid article by Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. It was much too rational for today’s letter-writer, so he proceeds to criticize it. Prepare for a fun ride, as the letter continues:
For one thing, the author and all who support their faith in evolution, fail to explain what they describe as “science.”
Uh … let’s see if we can guess where this is going. Well, there’s no need to guess. Let’s read on:
They hope the reader does not understand they are discussing origins instead of operational science. … Since the origin of the universe cannot be tested, cannot be repeated, and is not verifiable, origins science is open to interpretation.
Creationists have had some success in spreading that bogus dichotomy around, but it’s entirely worthless. See: ICR Says Scientists Don’t Understand Science. See also The Lessons of Tiktaalik. The letter continues:
Surely the author [Glenn Branch] knows that what one observes scientifically brings about dramatically different conclusions than they suggest. He surely knows there has never been an observed mutational change (a requirement to be science) that did not cause a loss of genetic information or an adaptation of the use of information already in an organism.
No new information from mutations? Really? But we know how these things happen — gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the duplicates. We’ve written about several known examples (see Is Convergent Evolution Explainable?). Here’s more from today’s letter:
He seems to think those that believe in evolution must be “woefully ignorant” individuals.
That’s probably a drafting blunder. Surely he meant “those that believe in creationism.” Moving along:
Well, I guess I am in that company, and pretty good company to be in if I may say so. No less than Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, George Washington Carver and many more of our most revered scientists spoke of their belief in God as creator.
Ah yes, the usual list of scientists who were religious, most from before Darwin. So what? No one doubts that a scientist can also be religious. However, even if they believed in a literal six-day creation, that belief didn’t contribute to their scientific discoveries. And now we come to the end:
So, why is it evolutionary supporters fear the teaching of creation as an option for our existence? I would think they would welcome the chance to shed the light of truth on this? Or could it be that is what they fear?
Good question! Well, Glenn, the letter-writer asked you a question. Do you fear the light of truth?
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.