Unless a letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. This one is an exception. He’s Abraham Drost, about whom you can read here. He’s the Chairman of a few mining companies, has a Masters degree in Mineral Exploration, and has been a consulting geologist to the Ontario Government. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Regarding an earlier letter, he says:
The author asserts that evolution is not some kind of faith-based product. He invokes the observations of Charles Darwin in the Galapagos which led to the theory of natural selection. He emphasizes the importance of hard physical evidence in scientific endeavour. As a geologist, a student of paleontology and a Christian, I agree with most of what he says.
He agrees with most of that — but not all. Here’s where he disagrees:
However, may I also suggest that what the schools should restrict themselves to is micro-evolution, that is physical, observable changes within species and fossil family lines over time in response to changing conditions and environmental stimuli, also known as survival of the fittest.
Oh dear. This sounds like an invitation to the micro-macro mambo, which we discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Let’s read on:
The hard physical evidence argument begins to break down in a discussion of macro-evolution or linkages outside of species and fossil family lines. Here is where a form of faith is also required to support the unifying theory of evolution.
Aaaargh!! What’s he saying — there are no transitional fossils? Okay, here’s a link to Wikipedia’s list of transitional fossils. We would have expected better from a man of his accomplishments. He continues:
Nowhere is this more profoundly evident than in the debate about the origin of humankind.
Lordy, lordy. Is he going to tell us he ain’t no kin to no monkey? We’ll find out:
Humankind is not physically evolved to withstand extremes in climate, nor a winner in the survival of the fittest category. Furthermore, the human brain is far more advanced than is required for mere survival in response to changing environmental circumstances. A brain this complex isn’t necessary for mere survival and yet there it is, out of sync with natural selection from our supposed predecessors.
Did you follow that? Drost seems to be saying: (1) we’re physically weak; (2) we’re mentally strong; (3) therefore, we shouldn’t have survived. Does that make sense, or does it seem likely that despite our physical weakness compared to some predators, we survived because of our brains? Drost doesn’t like our interpretation. Instead, he tells us:
The complexity of the human brain is in itself a contradiction to natural selection and survival of the fittest as a defining theory of human existence.
Uh huh — a smart person has no survival or reproductive advantages. Here’s how he wraps up his letter:
The human brain is capable of building bridges and skyscrapers and composing the sweetest of symphonies, incidentally dedicating it all to the glory of God in the case of J.S. Bach. And let’s not speak of the soul because after all, there is no hard physical evidence and it cannot be observed. Or can it . . . ?
We don’t know what to make of this one. What do you think, dear reader?
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.