Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Salina Journal of Salina, Kansas. It’s titled Neo-Darwinism versus Intelligent Design. 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 after a Google search we can inform you that this guy writes a lot of letters, and several have previously been published in the same paper. Okay, here we go:
In their dogmatic overcommitment to the belief in a universe without purpose or design, the neo-Darwinist evolutionists and their adherents resort to disregarding evidence and reasoning that contradicts their arguments. They typically dismiss such out of hand, not addressing sometimes self-verifiable facts. They then present their own biased assertions as proven beyond doubt.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a wild beginning! This looks like a winner. We can’t quit now. The rant goes on:
Such was exemplified by Gerald Martin’s Sept. 4 letter to the Journal in response to certain statements I have made in support of Intelligent Design theory. Perhaps with the aim of impressing his readers with his erudition, Martin began by throwing out geological and astronomical textbook data that he seems to construe as supporting the randomness hypothesis of biological evolution.
He’s talking about this: The history of gods and the Earth. It’s a fine letter, and it’s a response to an even earlier one written by today’s letter-writer. These two guys seem to have been battling it out for quite a while. Let’s get back to today’s letter:
The passage of eons of geological time, however, in no way increases the possibility of life being generated by random, fortuitous (“lucky”) events. Statistically, as a possibility, the chances are virtually nonexistent. As Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and cosmologist said, “The probability of life emerging by accident is less than that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Creationists love Fred Hoyle’s junkyard tornado. Let’s read on:
… I stand behind my statement that there is a primal form of mind driving evolutionary processes, as dictated by the principle of causality. It is, indeed, “obvious” to anyone who believes that the designed structures we see all about us cannot have emerged out of random events and processes.
Sloppy. The letter-writer’s “principle of causality” will lead him to an infinite series of gods who created the gods who created the “primal form of mind” he proposes. He’s correct, however, when he says that anyone who denies natural processes must therefore resort to supernatural causes. But he doesn’t realize that his infinite series of gods and the supernaturalism that emerges from his denial of natural processes are both invalid for the same reason — see Reductio ad absurdum. The letter continues:
No, Mr. Martin, there has been no fossil found yet as being taxonomically identified as an intermediate form between two different species, despite the many tons of speciments [sic] unearthed. No amount of digging is likely to produce such.
Lordy, lordy. We have to link to this again: List of transitional fossils. Here’s more:
Biblical young-earth creationism is not the only other alternative to neo-Darwinist evolutionism. There are others, foremost being evolution by Intelligent Design. It is not contradicted by any current geological and astrophysical knowledge; in fact, it is supported by it.
ID isn’t contradicted by the evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In a way, that’s true. The ID boys just claim that whatever the evidence may be, their “theory” is a better explanation. But their “theory” is useless because it isn’t testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no evidence that their magic designer has ever existed. ID theorists are nowhere in demand (except bible colleges), because their “theory” literally doesn’t explain anything. And now we come to the end:
By disengenuously [sic] (if not intentionally) equating it with Christian-literalist creationism, you are sidestepping the formidable evidence and reasoning that undermines neo/ultra-Darwinism.
Yes, he’s got “formidable evidence” that undermines “neo/ultra-Darwinism.” What’s that, dear reader? You want to see his evidence? It’s in his letter, you dolt! Read it again.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.