No news? That’s okay. We’ve found another letter-to-the-editor. This one appears in the Dallas Morning News and it’s titled Theories of God and evolution; how and why. Theories of god? That’s linguistically sloppy, and it signals that this letter is a good one for our collection.
We don’t like to provide internet visibility for creationists, nor do we like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), so we usually omit the writer’s full name and city. We have no idea who today’s letter-writer is, so we shall use only his first name, which is Chris. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Rich Grant’s comparison of what he labels as the “theory of evolution” and the “theory of God” is the equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.
He’s referring to this earlier letter, Born into beliefs, which says:
[I]sn’t it ironic that so many more people seem to accept the theory of God, without any evidence, than accept the theory of evolution, which is supported by evidence?
Let’s return to Chris’ letter:
The theory of evolution is attempting to determine how everything works, and the theory of God is attempting to determine why everything works.
We’ve seen variations on that, usually distinguishing between science and religion, but it’s good enough. Chris continues:
Science can only determine how things work, not why they work. The reason is because, absent of knowing why mass, energy and space exist and behave as they do, no comprehensive rationales can be given for any consequent phenomena.
That’s clumsy. The laws of nature and scientific theories do explain “consequent phenomena.” But only religion attempts to explain why the laws of nature are the way they are. Anyway, there’s no need to quibble at this point. The good stuff is coming, starting now:
Additionally, evolution is incomplete in many ways. To place complete faith in evolution requires as much faith as that required to believe in intelligent design.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Moving along:
In fact, it requires faith in millions of improbable events, not just one.
Good grief! Yes, each mutation may be considered “improbable,” but they’re all comprehensible, explainable events consistent with our understanding of physics and chemistry. Further, natural selection is an understandable and demonstrable mechanism for filtering out useful mutations from those that are harmful. Yes, the results may seem “improbable,” but unlike miracles, they’re natural events. Another excerpt:
For example, modern-day science has never been able to create life out of a non-life derivative substance.
True. But no creationist has ever demonstrated that it’s impossible. Therefore, however improbable one might consider it, it’s not a miracle. Okay, that was Chris’ first example. The next is where his letter gets really good:
Nor to explain how two completely complementary genders have, time and time again, conveniently showed up at the same locations and at the same times in either eggs or existing physical forms.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The only other time we’ve seen that argument was at Jack Chick’s website — see Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare. There really are creationists who imagine that unless a female for each species were miraculously created, the males would all die out. Just imagine the sudden appearance of the first woman in a population of males. Wow — would she be popular!
Oh wait — the same argument was advanced at ol’ Hambo’s website — see Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve. It seems that sex is a big problem for creationists, in more ways than one.
We’ve arrived the end of Chris’ letter, where he presents the greatest difficulty facing the theory of evolution:
It’s not as simple as: Which came first the chicken or the egg? Rather: Which came first, the two chickens or the two eggs?
So there you are. But we can’t leave you mystified. Here’s a repeat of the simplified explanation of the great mystery that we gave in the post about the Jack Chick article:
The two sexes exist in hermaphrodites. Some hermaphrodites cycle back and forth from one sex to the other. All that needed to happen is that one individual was mutated so that it was stuck in one sex or the other. This wasn’t a reproductive disaster, as that individual could always find a mate (but probably not a permanent one). If the “sticky” mutation perseveres, in future generations there will be some individuals that are always one gender or the other. That’s how it begins.
If you don’t like our explanation, dear reader, you’re free to provide your own. Or you can join Chris, Jack Chick, and ol’ Hambo. It’s up to you.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.