Today’s letter-to-the-editor is actually two weeks old and it’s not very original, but we can’t find anything else today. It appears in the Salina Journal of Salina, Kansas, and it’s titled Two kinds of evolution. 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. Get ready, dear reader, here we go:
The occasional letters to the Journal regarding evolution are interesting, but the category being discussed needs to be specified. Microevolution, or variations within kinds sometimes leading to new species, is observable.
Lordy, lordy — it’s the micro-macro mambo. We’ve written about that maybe a hundred times. It’s the first item mentioned in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then the letter-writer patiently explains the concept for those who aren’t as informed as he is:
The dog “kind” has within it many types or breeds, and there are many kinds and species of birds, insects, fish, etc. But there are genetic boundaries in place that limit the possible progeny that can be produced.
Yes. All creationists know about the Great Barrier that keeps track of mutations and prevents them from occurring after a limited number. Only a miracle can overcome the Great Barrier. Here’s more of the letter-writer’s explanation:
Genesis 1 uses the phrase “according to its kind” or “according to their kinds” many times in the creation account for both plants and animals, a reference to these boundaries. Inherent in this is that the genetic codes necessary for both life and reproduction within these kinds were put in place by God at creation.
That was good. Even an idiot can understand it. In fact, every idiot does understand it. Let’s read on:
Macroevolution — the theory that all the myriad life forms we see today descended from a primitive, one-celled organism that arose by chance eons ago — is not observable and has no evidence to support it.
No evidence! Well, there’s this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The letter continues:
Proteins are essential components of all living cells, and advances in cellular and molecular biology have shown that the odds for even a simple, functional protein to arise by chance is in the order of 1 in 10 to the 160th power, a statistical impossibility.
Wow — that’s a big number! Like most creationists, the letter-writer has enough intelligence to reject the imaginary Theory of Spontaneous Assembly of Very Complex Molecules from Start to Finish from Utterly Isolated Atoms (TSAVCMSFUIA). But that’s not evolution’s only problem. He describes even more:
Macroevolution also has a big problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that of increasing entropy or disorder of systems over time. The fossil record, rather than supporting macroevolution, is better explained by the cataclysm associated with the global flood recorded in Genesis 7.
Ah yes, the Flood explains so much. Here’s how it ends:
The theory of macroevolution lacks scientific support, and to say that it is an established fact is intellectual dishonesty.
As we said at the start, this wasn’t much of a letter. But considering that it’s from Kansas, it’s the best that can be expected.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.