Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the News-Review of Roseburg, Oregon. The title is Scientists and creationists each take a leap of faith.
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 Jim. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Recently the Public Forum printed a letter from a cosmologist here in Roseburg in response to the debate about teaching creationism in schools. His opinion was that the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are provable science. The cosmologist might be surprised to learn his beliefs are not necessarily out of line with what some creationists believe.
Your Curmudgeon would be surprised. How, pray tell, does the thinking of a cosmologist line up with that of a creationist? Jim says:
If one were to read the Bible, he would find that God created the universe by speaking it into existence. The cosmologist calls this the Big Bang theory. Although there were no human witnesses to the event, if one believes that it was God’s voice which created the universe, it may have been quite loud – a big bang indeed.
Aaaargh!! Does Jim know what sound is? Apparently not. Let’s read on:
Scientists call the cause of the Big Bang a singularity — that moment in time and space when all the matter in the universe was poised to begin expanding from one very small spot as if from an explosion (Big Bang). Creationists might point to the first words in the Bible and say this was the cause. “In the beginning God created…” = singularity. “God said,” = Big Bang.
Uh huh. Yeah, the Big Bang and Genesis line up perfectly. We just use different words for the same thing. Right! Jim continues:
Even scientists describe their explanations of natural phenomena as theories. Theory = belief.
Aaaargh!! Here’s more:
The Bible is a very reliable and accurate document, having been proven through comparison with other sources and sciences like archaeology.
Archaeology? The Iliad is even better confirmed by archaeology — and it’s a far more interesting story. Alas, there’s not much to Jim’s letter. All that’s left is the end:
Those portions [of the bible, presumably] that believers take on faith are no more difficult to believe than the theories science uses to explain creation such as the Big Bang, singularity, and evolution. The honest scientist must also take these on faith.
So there you are. Creationists take the Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark on faith, and Jim says you do the same with cosmology and evolution. Admit it, dear reader — you’re just as wacky as the creationists.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.