Things are wild in Lincoln, Nebraska, the state capital. That town’s newspaper, the Journal Star, has been running a whole series of letters for us. It all started with one we wrote about here: #496: Strange Analogy.
That creationist letter resulted in a rational and well-informed response — Science over Creationism. We didn’t write about the sane letter, but it seems to have stirred things up in Nebraska. It soon provoked another letter that we did write about — see #498: Grand Synthesis. And now there’s yet another in that same newspaper.
Today’s letter-to the editor is titled Science in intelligent design. There’s a comments section at the end with 15 comments so far, but the newspaper makes you answer some annoying questions before you can see them.
Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t use his full name. His first name is Garrick. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
This is written to respectfully challenge the letter submitted Dec. 6 by Norman D Smith, Denton, titled “Science over creationism.”
That letter certainly did awaken the droolers among the readers of the Journal Star. Garrick says:
The problem I have with Smith is that he uses scientism rather than science itself to make the case for evolution. This is a common strategy that the supporters of evolution resort to in presenting themselves as those who speak for science while those who support a creationist view are dismissed as “religious.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Garrick denies that his creationism is religious. He’s merely opposing “scientism” — whatever that’s supposed to be. Let’s read on:
The fact is that many serious scientists maintain that the evolutionary model fails to explain how complex life forms came into existence. The fossil record does not contain a single verifiable example of a transition species that could be described as a missing link between ape and man.
Egad — Garrick has seen through the fraud! He continues:
The reality is the evolutionary model requires that random mutations have the “creative power” to refine and improve existing life forms unguided by any intelligent power.
That seems to be a cornerstone of creationism. A mutation can’t have any effect by itself. It needs to be guided by an intelligent power. Our teachers lied to us! And if you find that to be a stunning revelation, wait until you read Garrick’s next disclosure:
Such an idea is at odds with every established norm of science, where statistically improbable events are excluded a priori.
[*Curmudgeon swoons*] And so we learn of another postulate of creation science. Here’s more:
When attempting to refute the alternative theory of intelligent design, evolutionists state that the theory is false yet fail to provide specific, coherent and logical arguments to support this view.
Sorry, Garrick, but the burden of proof is the other way around. Take a look at our Advice for Creationists. Those who advocate a “theory” have the burden of presenting evidence that supports it, and in the case of of intelligent design, that has never been done. Moving along:
Many examples could be presented to show how evolution has claimed certain fossils provide the elusive missing link, but none withstand close scrutiny.
It’s been just one Piltdown Man after another. And now we come to the end:
I recommend that those who are willing to pursue an objective, unbiased approach to understanding origins will find that evolution is simply a theory that cannot stand up to close scrutiny.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Great letter, Garrick!
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.