Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Post-Bulletin of Rochester, Minnesota. The title is Theories come and go, so they shouldn’t be seen as facts. It’s a bit short, and rather confusing, but it’s all we could find today.
We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we’ll just use the letter-writer’s first name, which is John. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Science deals in data and facts. This is why the “Big Bang,” evolution and human-caused global warming are considered “theories.” While each have observations and data to support them, there also are data and observations against each.
We’ll ignore the reference to human-caused global warming, about which we are not well informed; but it’s surprising to hear that there are “data and observations” against the Big Bang and evolution. We’re eager to learn about that from John. He tells us:
The data and observations of our universe lend credence to the “Big Bang” theory. Several hundred years ago, Copernicus advanced a sun-centered universe over the earth-centered universe that was in vogue. There followed the galactic universe, an island galaxy among galaxies, and today many alternatives are being advanced.
What did he say? Copernicus had data and observations contrary to the Big Bang? Or is he merely saying that our knowledge has progressed in the last few centuries, and new facts result in new theories that inevitably supersede old ones? Perhaps it will all be cleared up as we proceed with John’s letter. Let’s read on:
So while I can see the striking similarity between the first several verses of Genesis and the Big Bang theory, I am sure that the next few decades will bring even more fantastic possible theories.
Striking similarities indeed — that must be why so many creationists hate the Big Bang theory. And John is certain that even more theories are coming. What will that mean for Genesis? John continues:
As a person of faith and of science, I struggle to rationalize the two.
Stop struggling, John. Trust the Curmudgeon — it’s better to compartmentalize them. Here’s more:
How does one accept the DNA molecule being created by happenstance, rather than a guiding hand?
Why only one guiding hand? Why not five, or ten, or ten billion? Once you leave the natural world, there aren’t any limits.
Up to now, we’ve got a lot of questions. John better answer them soon, because what’s coming next is the end of his letter:
I am limited by space constraints from more debate, but theories are advanced and most are discarded when data and observation do not support that theory.
[*Sigh*] So we’re back where we started, which is nowhere. John said he had data and observations against evolution and the Big Bang. But as always happens, we’re left wondering where it is. It must be out there, somewhere, because the creationists always say they’ve got it. We’ll keep looking — they must be keeping it somewhere.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.