Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Inter Lake of Kalispell, Montana, the gateway to Glacier National Park. It’s titled What evolution doesn’t explain. There’s a comments section at the end.
Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Mike. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Derek Brouwer’s article about House Bill 321 (reprinted in the Inter Lake) is proof in itself that there is controversy about the origin of life. And he presents a very one-sided argument against critical thinking on that subject.
This is the article that has Mike so upset: Anti-evolution’ bill would protect HS teachers who teach creationism. It criticizes the creationism bill sponsored by Clayton Fiscus that we wrote about here: Montana Creationism: New Bill for 2015. The article uses the same photo of Fiscus that we used, from the Montana legislature’s website.
Mike claims that opposition to the Fiscus bill is proof that there’s a scientific controversy. The same could be said about the “scientific controversy” over The Time Cube. In defense of the bill and his intellectual hero, Clayton Fiscus, Mke says:
Since the origin of life is a one-time event that happened in the past, there is no way to prove scientifically, one way or the other, how it happened. All we have is evidence in the present.
Yup — all we have is what we see today. Cosmology, geology, and evolution are bunk. Let’s read on:
Both evolutionism and creationism are interpretations of the same evidence.
Evolutionism? As we’ve remarked before: Why the double suffix? Does that put the theory in grave danger? Two can play that game. How about calling creationism creationism-ish-ness? Mike continues:
To determine the validity of any interpretation requires seeing just how well it fits with the evidence we see and can reproduce using the scientific method.
Aaaargh!! As we’ve pointed out before, science does not require the recreation of past events. No one is going to do another Big Bang, and no one is going to re-create the Earth’s biosphere. Oh wait — Mike wrote a wee bit carelessly. He said that we’re required to “reproduce using the scientific method.” That sounds like fun. Here’s more:
For example, how does evolution explain the existence of matter, energy, space, time or information? It has no explanation.
How does evolution explain those things? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And observe, dear reader, that Mike regards “information” as one of the basic components of the universe. Moving along:
How does evolution explain the origin of life?
It doesn’t. Here’s another excerpt:
Spontaneous generation through chemical processes (abiogenesis) has been debunked years ago, yet still continues to be taught in biology texts.
Aaaargh!! That’s one of the classic creationist fantasies. It’s debunked in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims here: Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the “law of biogenesis” — that life comes only from previous life. On with Mike’s letter:
How can there be carbon 14 in diamonds? How can there be well-preserved soft tissue in a T-Rex bone?
Aaaargh!! The diamond argument comes from the Institute for Creation Research. Panda’s Thumb wrote about it here: Diamonds Aren’t Forever? And we wrote about the soft tissue argument in Dinosaur Fossils Found with Hot Red Meat?
But Mike isn’t done yet. He’s a veritable encyclopedia of creationist clunkers. Here’s another:
Why are there (still) no undisputed transitional forms throughout the fossil record? These and other questions cast legitimate doubt on the “fact” of evolution.
Should we bother with that one again? Oh, why not — it only takes a couple of seconds. See Wikipedia’s list of transitional fossils. And now we come to the end:
If critical thinking isn’t allowed on all subjects, our children are being indoctrinated, not educated.
Huxley was known as Darwin’s bulldog, and Mike is playing the same role for Clayton Fiscus. What a team!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.