Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t use his full name. His first name is Bill. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
I try to keep up with past and current affairs, but I sure missed something. In Frank Bruni’s column which you published on Thursday, Nov. 6, titled “Republicans, meet science,” he stated “… there are many Americans who still deny what Darwin and other scientists long ago proved. They elect mysticism over empiricism.”
He’s talking about this, which we found in the New York Times: Republicans, Meet Science. Bruni obviously erred in saying that the theory was “proved,” because theories never are — but it’s overwhelmingly supported by all the evidence ever discovered. The thing was probably reprinted in Bill’s local paper, and it has upset him terribly. He says:
Where is the book or article which proves evolution? If Mr. Bruni can provide me a copy I would like to read it.
Hey, yeah! Where’s that book? Let’s read on:
I still refer to evolution as a theory, not a law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is defined as a law because it can be tested experimentally, and it has never been shown to be inaccurate. Where is the experimental proof that shows that evolution as hypothesized by many scientist is in fact a law?
Aaaargh!! Bill doesn’t know the difference between a theory and a law, nor does he know that one never gets promoted to the other. It’s not that difficult to find definitions — see Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions, and also Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work. Bill continues:
There have been many theories brought forth and then continuously revised as scientists discover new data that conflicts with the old, which is the way science is supposed to work. But as these revisions are made, the hypothesis remains just that, an hypothesis.
He doesn’t know the meaning of hypothesis either. Here’s the rest of it:
I am not aware of any empirical proof that evolution of man, or any species for that matter, has evolved from some non-living soup of those “building blocks of life” that are continually presented as the start of life. And without empirical proof, I would suggest that those scientists who continually try to push their theory as fact are mystics themselves.
We can’t fool Bill! He knows we’re a bunch of mystics.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.