Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Rockdale Citizen of Rockdale County, Georgia, and it’s titled Athiests want double standard when expressing their views in public. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis.
We usually omit the writer’s name and city, but we’ll make an exception here. The author is John Pearrell, pastor of Gateway Community Church in Covington, Georgia. The church’s website says they’re affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, this is the rev’s second appearance in our collection. The first was here: Creationist Wisdom #322: The Preacher. Okay, let’s get started. The letter begins with a discussion of a hot local issue as to whether bibles should be placed in cabins in Georgia’s state parks. We’ll skip that and get to the good stuff:
Before you start arguing evolution is science and creation is not, let me remind you that neither evolution nor creation fits the two major criteria of scientific investigation — namely, that it be observable and repeatable.
Ah yes, the typical creationist’s concept of science — it all has to be repeatable. Presumably that would include ice ages, meteor craters, volcanic eruptions, etc. And of course, if the development of the planet’s entire biosphere can’t be repeated in the lab, it never happened. Then he says:
In fact, even science has shelved Darwinian evolution (the antiquated view we still teach in our public schools) in favor of the theory of punctuated equilibrium — the sudden appearance of various life-forms during various ages rather than the old Darwinian mutation model.
Aaaargh!! The “sudden appearance” the rev talks about is likely to be an illusion caused by the inevitable imperfections of the geological record. But even if significant evolution events are sometimes seen to occur sporadically, there is no theoretical requirement that evolutionary changes must always occur at a smooth, constant rate. Mutations occur in every generation, but speciation need not be the result. Evolutionary changes can be accelerated by environmental factors. Punctuated equilibrium is an idea that fits within the modern theory of evolution, and it’s only about the timing of significant evolutionary change. It neither contradicts nor replaces Darwinian evolution. Let’s read on:
The more advanced our scientific knowledge has become, the less believable Darwin’s theory has grown. Turns out his “simple” cell model was anything but simple.
And that means what — that Darwin wasn’t omniscient? We know that, but his theory is still quite viable. We continue, and now it gets really wild:
Unfortunately, anyone who has really studied the “evidence” soon comes to realize that most of it is mere speculation based on the belief system of the evolutionist. Case in point is when Darwin unearthed his Australopithecus he hid for 50 years under the floor board of his house, evidence that clearly contradicted his find.
What? Darwin hid an Australopithecus fossil because it contradicted his theory? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey, rev: Darwin died in 1882, but according to Wikipedia, the first Australopithecus fossil discovered was described in an article in Nature in 1925.
Here’s more from the rev:
Another example is Donald Johansen’s famous find, Lucy, declared to be “the mother of all mankind,” but declared by evolutionist Richard Leaky III [sic] to be, “Nothing more than the skeleton of a chimpanzee.”
Who in the world is “Richard Leaky III”? Except for the rev’s rantings, we find no mention of the guy anywhere — whether we spell it “Leaky” or “Leakey.” Perhaps the rev has secret sources (which he keeps hidden like Darwin hid that Australopithecus fossil), but the rev’s Lucy doubter doesn’t appear to be related to Louis Leakey or his son, Richard Leakey. The rev made that same claim in his earlier letter, but we didn’t bother to quote it in our writeup.
Here’s the end of the rev’s letter:
So much for “hard evidence” upon which a scholarly investigation is built. With that said, isn’t it at least a tad bit disingenuous for atheists to call for the right to express their opposing views in public if they are not willing to allow views opposed to theirs be freely expressed?
Something around here seems “a tad bit disingenuous,” but we’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to figure out what that might be.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.