Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Herald of Rock Hill, South Carolina. The letter is titled Fossil record is not evidence of evolution. Here are 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 apologize to William Rogers (“Creationism has no place in a science classroom”). It was not my intent to use the term Darwinism as a pejorative, but merely to designate the various manifestations of scientific endeavor that were launched by Charles Darwin.
That refers to this earlier letter, which was written by “a professor of biology at Winthrop University,” which is in Rock Hill. Today’s letter continues:
While Darwin was a biologist, his claims, to be valid, must reach far beyond biology. In other words, if there is no designer, there must be a seamless transition from the genesis of the universe to the present.
Darwin must have been an idiot to undertake such a task. It’s no wonder that he failed miserably. Let’s read on:
He [Rogers, the earlier letter-writer] acknowledges that chemical evolution has made no headway concerning how life began, which is a bedrock principle required for evolutionary biology to be true. All other changes that biologists have observed or tested can just as easily and often better be explained through creation. For example, the claim that the DNA of similar organisms being more closely aligned than those that are significantly different doesn’t support evolution any more than creation.
So many errors, so little time. Chemical evolution of the first living things is something that hasn’t been figured out yet, but there’s little doubt among scientists that it occurred. Even if we never figure it out (which is unlikely) evolution from that point forward is what Darwin’s theory addresses. And yes, the evidence that all organisms are related is something that can be “easily explained” as a miracle. Anything and everything can be “explained” that way, but if it’s a miracle then by definition we know nothing about it and we can’t do anything with that “understanding,” so there’s no sense in which it’s a better explanation. The letter continues:
Rogers isn’t entirely accurate with his claim that “since Francis Bacon …science has worked to get out from under the yoke of supernatural explanation.” Until the 20th century, most scientists were strong believers and secure in their understanding of why the universe operates. Their quest was to uncover natural explanations and devise scientific principles of how the universe operates. Those are two entirely different questions, but modern scientists incorrectly treat them as one.
Huh? What did he say? It doesn’t matter; we won’t worry about it. Here’s more:
Rogers chided me for using the term “higher life forms,” but I thought lower to higher was the reasoning behind biological evolutionary thinking. His claim that the fossil record shows a clear line of transitional forms from fish to amphibians (lower to higher?) is more a tribute to the drawings of artists than the fossil remains themselves. Rarely is an entire fossil found, so scientists fill in the unknown pieces from what they believe them to be by using artists’ drawings. With such additions it is difficult to determine where science ends and imagination begins. The gaps in actual fossils recovered remain annoyingly unchanged.
Gaps. It’s all gaps. Moving along … we’ll skip a couple of paragraphs of discussion about a protein. It’s not worth the effort. Here’s more:
Rogers’ assertion that scientists are free to question prevailing scientific ideas is somewhat disingenuous. It is true you can challenge one prevailing opinion with something else, but it must fit within the parameters of evolutionary thinking to be taken seriously. A group of scientists recently completed a five-year study on radiometric dating that met all the criteria Rogers laid out for serious scientific challenge. They have been able to demonstrate through field study, rigorous testing in the lab and peer review that decay rates of all the various elements used for dating are not constant. Because this study challenges old earth cosmology, a basic tenet of evolutionary dictum, no mainstream scientific organization was even willing to look at it.
Does anyone know what the letter-writer is talking about? We certainly don’t. And now, at last, we come to the end:
Evolutionary theory rests on the premise that it is possible to change from chaos to organization through time and energy. While there are some small instances of this, the overall change of the universe is toward disorder and decay. Evolutionary science is a fool’s errand that allows man to say there is no God! How do I know? I’ve been there myself.
Wow — he was there! That’s how he knows evolution is a fool’s errand.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.