Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Salina Journal of Salina, Kansas, and it’s titled Evolution is just a religion. 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, but we will disclose that at the end of his letter the writer is described as a factory worker. Okay, let’s get started:
Gerald Martin begins with a definition for how good science is established, and then makes the statement, “So it is with evolution.”
He’s referring to this, Martin letter, the sort of letter which, when we encounter it, triggers a response like: “Well, of course!” and then we continue scanning for funny stuff that we can write about. But not everyone reads rational letters as we do. Some people, like today’s letter-writer, are apparently filled with rage and feel the uncontrollable urge to respond. Here it comes:
Has evolution been tested and proven? No.
If you read the earlier letter that generated today’s response, you’ll find that the definition provided there didn’t speak of evolution — or any theory — as having been “proven.” Instead it said this:
It is very easy to see precisely how a scientific theory is defined — Google and you will see: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Scientific theories created from hypothesis that have been corroborated through scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.” So it is with evolution. [Emphasis supplied.]
Let’s see how today’s letter-writer deals with a claim that wasn’t made regarding a theory he doesn’t understand. The next few sentences are all in one paragraph, but each is so wonderful that we’ll present them separately:
There are no creatures turning into other kinds of creatures, or sprouting new appendages, or growing a new set of wings.
Evolutionary theories are not observable, cannot be tested and proven, and have not earned the right to be included within the realm of science.
The fossil record shows no transitional forms at all.
They have no answer to the question of how life began, the biochemistry required is far too complex for the simple lightning bolt and primordial slime explanation that evolutionists give.
Aaaargh!! We are not going to respond to that paragraph, because we’ve dealt with those things too many times before. The letter continues:
Martin [the prior letter-writer] moves on to geology as a benchmark for evolution. Here again he is mistaken. The Earth’s crust is made of granite rock. Granite cannot be formed in the laboratory, and the conditions under which it would form are not known. The reasonable assumption would be that granite rock was made, not formed.
Here we must confess our ignorance of granite, but even if its origin isn’t well understood, or if the geological conditions required for its formation can’t be reproduced in the lab, it’s not reasonable to assume that its existence is a miracle. However, because we’ve never before seen granite used as “evidence” for Oogity Boogity, we consider it a worthy argument for you to ponder. Let’s read some more:
As for the geologic column, it exists only in textbooks. Over 75 percent of the Earth’s surface is missing 70 percent of the strata systems that make up the geologic column. Another instance of a theory with minimal proof being taught as fact.
That’s a creationist oldie-goldie, included in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. See The entire geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth. And here’s the letter’s very predictable end:
The only fact that we can readily see is that evolution is like religion. We cannot prove that God exists, and in the same way, science cannot prove that evolution exists. Both are built upon faith. Both are just religion.
So there you are, dear reader. Another fine addition to our collection.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.