One of our clandestine operatives tipped us off to today’s letter-to-the-editor. Like the last one we wrote about, it appears in the Akron Beacon Journal of Akron, Ohio. It’s the third letter under this headline:Letters to the editor – March 18, and it’s titled “Flawed theory of evolution.”
Gasp! The theory is flawed! We’ll give you some 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:
In the March 13 letter “Science teachers teach science,” the writer suggests that the teaching of intelligent design is the teaching of religion masquerading as science.
He’s talking about the letter that appears here. It’s brief so we’ll quote the whole thing:
In advocating the teaching of religion in public schools, the writer of the March 7 letter “Objective and neutral” overlooks the simple fact that science teachers are hired to teach science, not religion. So-called “intelligent design” smacks of nothing but religion, albeit frequently masquerading as science. No matter how many times the federal courts correctly forbid the teaching of religious theories in public schools, a few zealots never learn.
That was enough to enrage today’s letter-writer. Here’s what he says:
On the contrary, intelligent design is a conclusion arrived at from the scientific evidence, as opposed to the theory of evolution, based upon presupposition and speculation, unsupported by even one proven transition form and refuted by the fossil record.
Lordy, lordy. Evolution is speculation. No evidence. No transitional fossils. Our professors lied to us! Let’s read on:
If a paleontologist happened upon Mount Rushmore, he could conclude that what appear to be identifiable faces is the result of erosion caused by wind and rain, or he could conclude that what he sees is the result of intelligent design.
Uh huh. Behe uses Mount Rushmore as an example of design. Not much controversy there. It’s exactly the same when we observe a colon or a kidney, right? The letter continues:
There are countless irreducibly complex structures and processes in the biological world, such as the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and DNA coding for protein, that scream design infinitely more than Mount Rushmore and which are so astronomically improbable as to be impossible to have resulted from chance.
Ooooooh! Irreducible complexity! Astronomically huge improbabilities! Wow — everything is a miracle! Here’s more:
If Darwinian evolution is such a sound and defensible scientific theory, it should be able to stand up to the counter evidence.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What counter evidence? The drooling incomprehension of an ignoramus? Moving along:
Why are the Darwinists so afraid to allow school children to hear the arguments for intelligent design? Do they have something to hide?
Yes. Yes! We’re afraid! Another excerpt:
Intelligent design does not suggest what or who is responsible for the design, only that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests design.
The evidence doesn’t merely suggest design, it does so overwhelmingly! Here’s the letter’s thundering climax:
However, we all know that the ultimate issue is the origin of life. Going from inanimate matter to Albert Einstein by mindless random processes is no less of a religious belief than a belief in intelligent design.
Well! There’s no way to argue with that. Nice letter, wasn’t it?
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.