Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Shropshire Star, the fifth biggest-selling regional evening newspaper in Britain. It’s located in Telford, which is in Shropshire — for our US readers, that’s in England. The title is Evolution argument short of purpose, hope and evidence.
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 David. He may have some connection with Centre Ministries, but we can’t confirm that. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
David begins by referring to a letter by Tom Williams, which we can’t locate. It doesn’t matter. David says:
Tom Williams is quite right to point out that flowers are the reproductive organs of plants and trees. … His narrative of millions and billions of years does not answer the simple question of how plants were pollinated if they appeared on earth millions of years before insects or how insects fed and obtained their nutrients if they appeared before flowers. They would have needed to appear on earth within days of each other for either species to survive.
Wow! That’s so obvious! Organisms that exhibit a symbiotic relationship must have been created at the same time. Why haven’t we seen that argument before? David then tells us:
The theory he proposes is a narrative without purpose or hope or even evidence. The billions of years depend on assumptions which change with passing generations. An increasing number of scientists have come to the conclusion that so many of these assumptions are without basis in science that they have turned to another more solid source of information.
Yes! Why stick with an ever-changing set of assumptions that offer no purpose or hope — and no evidence? But what’s the “more solid source of information” to which David refers? Let’s read on:
Fossils need rapid burial and pressure more likely provided by a global flood than millions of years. Without rapid burial, plants and animals would decompose and be disposed of by other creatures. A global flood would result in millions of dead things being found in sedimentary rocks all over the world’s surface, which is what we do find.
We think David is giving us a clue about what he considers a “more solid source of information.” He continues:
Tom’s world view has no answer to where matter came from, what produce [sic] the energy for the Big Bang, or where life came from. Neither does it answer why we die.
He’s right. There’s only one source for all of that information. Here’s more:
DNA is the most complex information system known to man. Information requires intelligence to produce, such a complex system as DNA requires a mind so vast and powerful that we cannot begin to understand, let alone confine such a mind.
Why hasn’t anyone else ever pointed these things out to us? Moving along:
I understand that being to be an all wise, all knowing, all powerful God, to whom I give all the praise.
Rightly so! And now we come to the end:
If flowers were not for our enjoyment, why do so many people grow just flowers and find great pleasure in them?
Of all the excellent points David has made, that is his best. Great letter!
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.