That was back in June. Since then he’s won the primary election, and now he’s facing Democrat Amanda Curtis in the November election. (Daines’ previous opponent recently withdrew from the race due to a plagiarism scandal.) Amanda is a state legislator who teaches high school math and physics. We assume she’s not a creationist, but we’re not certain. At the moment, Daines is considered the likely winner.
Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears in the Ravalli Republic of Hamilton, Montana, the county seat of Ravalli County. The letter is titled U.S. Senate Race: Let creationists run government, and there appears to be a comments section at the end, but there aren’t any comments at the moment.
We don’t embarrass letter-writers by using their full names unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures. We don’t know who this one is, so we shall use only his first name, which is Dale. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Matthews Bradley says Rep. Steve Daines, R.-Mont., should not be a senator because he is a creationist (letter, Oct. 3). Maybe we should let creationists run the government for a while; the evolutionists have done a rotten job.
This is the letter Dale is complaining about: Creationist Daines not qualified. From an earlier letter he wrote, it appears that Bradley is a biologist. Okay, back to Dale’s letter:
Creationists wouldn’t do something stupid like declaring CO2 to be a pollutant. In the order of nature, it is a nutrient. Without CO2, agriculture would be impossible, and we wouldn’t be here.
Wow — good point! How did we all miss that? Let’s read on:
Bradley says, “The evidence for (evolution) is overwhelming.” Not so. A valid theory must make predictions. Charles Darwin predicted numerous transitional forms in the fossil record, which is the only “evidence” for evolution. We have over 100 million identified and cataloged fossils collected for more than 155 years, but none are indisputably or even likely transitional. Instead, the fossil evidence suggests that every organism reproduces “after his kind.”
[*Groan*] Once again we’ll link to Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. Oh, fossils are not the only evidence for evolution, but you already know that, so let’s not waste time. The letter continues:
Quoting Darwin himself: “Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
[*Another groan*] We love it when a creationist quotes Darwin to disprove evolution. It’s just flat-out stupid. Dale has quote mined from Origin of Species, Chapter 9, On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. Right after asking that question, Darwin proceeds to answer it for the rest of the chapter. But Dale wouldn’t know that, because he only reads creationist websites. Here’s more from his letter:
Evolution is defined as “random variation by mutation.” The key word is “random,” meaning no plan, no purpose and no direction.
We’ve seen worse definitions, but that’s pretty bad. Moving along:
The formerly “simple cell” has been shown by molecular biology to be incredibly complex – mathematically impossible because too many functions would have had to arise (i.e., mutate) simultaneously. Bradley has a degree in molecular biology, and yet still believes in evolution. Now that’s incredible. Overwhelm us, Dr. Bradley; show us some evidence.
Dale is right! Whenever we see something complicated, the only possible explanation is Oogity Boogity! Another excerpt:
If evolution is true, then, as Scott Adams says in the comic strip Dilbert, “You are nothing more than a temporary arrangement of matter sliding toward oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe.” Somehow, creationism seems more comforting, historical and scientific.
Very impressive! We don’t recall seeing a comic strip used as evidence before. And here’s the last line:
Vote for Daines.
Poor Daines. He may be a creationist, but we like some of his other issues — balanced budget, opposition to an Internet sales tax, support for Second Amendment rights, etc. He deserves better than this.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.