Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Beloit Daily News of Beloit, Wisconsin. It’s titled Show the facts for evolution. The newspaper has a comments feature.
Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We’ll use only his first name, which is Kevin. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Darwin is still waiting. Darwin knew 132 years ago that he didn’t have the evidence to prove his theory of a true species turning into a new true species. He hoped future scientists would find it. Scientists failed; not that they didn’t try.
Yeah, everyone has been trying, but so far — nothing. Poor Darwin. Then Kevin says:
Evolutionary scientists like to show off Darwin’s finches or the famous peppered moths of England to prove their theory. We called it adapting to their environment. Scientists call it evolution. But the finches stayed finches and the moths will always be moths. No new species, yet they remain icons of the lie of evolution.
He’s right. Nothing ever changes. Let’s read on:
Do paleontologists know that geologists don’t have good evidence for the age of their rocks? Do geologists know that paleontologists don’t have good evidence for the age of their fossils? Circular reasoning is not good science.
Oh? Answers in Genesis says it’s great science — see AIG’s Logic: Prepare To Lose Your Mind. Kevin continues:
Knowing mutations are a loss of information, like removing letters from this sentence — how can anything evolve into something better? That would take thousands of mutations.
Isn’t this great? Here’s more:
Once or twice a year scientists get all excited when someone finds another missing link. It’s in all the media. Upon further investigation it turns out not to be a missing link. Everything from Archaeopteryx to Lucy have failed the tests. Of course they don’t tell us they don’t have any evidence, so their lies continue.
How did this guy figure it out? Moving along:
Throughout the earth’s history we don’t see evolution. We do see plants and animals after their own kind: Genesis 1: 11-25.
Ah yes. It’s so true! Keven finishes his letter with what looks like a fair request:
If anyone replies to this letter, please don’t comment on me or my beliefs, just show the facts of evolution.
Well, dear reader? If you can’t comment about Kevin, and you don’t have any facts, there’s nothing to say, is there?
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Many creationist like to claim that the evidence for evolution is a lie but I have never heard them postulate any reason for science to lie. If such an enormous conspiracy did exist there would have to have to be some reason behind it. It seem that the only way that these people can defend their 3000 year old myth is to maintain that science is a lie. They accept a wide range of the results of science without doubting them. Is their mythic belief too precious to allow it to be threatened?
Kevin, scientists have been showing you the evidence for over a century, you’ve chosen to ignore it.
Many creationists (and a few others) believe that scientists lie because they are paid to do so. Tobacco companies or drug companies or oil companies or solar energy companies or the like. They also believe (with some reason) that scientists working for government agencies find it difficult to get results that blow differently from the current political wind.
Hey, you are getting personal with ole’ Deetz here, saying his favorite Archaeopteryx is a failed transitional. Henry Morris may say so, but scientists don’t. Its real easy: if it is a bird, why does it have teeth and a tail? If it is a dinosaur, why does it have wings and feathers? Please Kevin, show us how this is a failure. Please.
Isn’t Kevin is Scott Walker’s son look-alike.
Doctor Stochastic suggests that creationists believe that evolutionists are paid to lie. Who would benefit from the suppression of the science of evolution? One can make a case for tobacco companies paying to suppress the dangers of smoking or the oil companies denying global warming – those companies will benefit from the their payments. Who do the creationists think will benefit from the promotion of evolution at the price of paying off the entire scientific community? There is no possible financial return for the sources of the alleged payments.
Evolutionists lie to ensnare children into their devil worship. Satan promises whatever they want.
“the evidence to prove his theory”
Ah, my creationist over at Patheos wrote this as well and even on a more general level (not only regarding speciation). Of course I didn’t make the mistake to bring forward any evidence; they always dismiss it for any reason they can think of. No, I replied that he didn’t get his terminology right. Evidence, ie empirical data never prove anything. They only confirm. Also I was a lot more snarky.
End result: he fleed from me. He ranted a bit how I make atheism look bad and since then remained silent.
Yup, it can be done.
Kevin obviously never googled “observed speciation”. My creationist is a bit smarter; he talked about “kinds”. That’s obviously an introduction to the micro-macro mambo (yup, SC writes very useful stuff – thanks!). So I asked him to define “kind”. The reply was hilarious again: “Very easy – dog kind, cat kind, bird kind.”
@Cynic: “Who would benefit from the suppression of the science of evolution?”
Hey, nobody here claimed it was a good answer. Anyhow, creationists would say: scientists.
Never underestimate the depth, breath, or power of human stupidity! This kid like so many demonstrate those are words to live by.
When the AIG dims get their beliefs solid enough to do something USEFUL for humans in general, ie using their BS to solve the problem of ebola, then I will pay attention to their BS, So Kevin instead of raging on evilution, come up with something that works better, or are you just too dim to do real science!?!?
@mnbo
Wikipedia has an article with the names of “Animals in the Bible”. (I find it interesting that there are no names of fishes, other than leviathan and whale.) The article brings up the suggestion, which I have not seen before, that the “kinds” of animals in the Bible are four: fish, birds, crawlers, walkers.
@Tom S. Well, if that’s the case, then the ark was more like a luxury cruise ship than a zoo. Checkmate evilutionists!
> “If anyone replies to this letter, please don’t comment
> on me or my beliefs, just show the facts of evolution.”
—————-
What are you, two years old? You’re a moron. Your beliefs are hideously harmful. Evolution is the best-supported theory in all of science. Every single observed fact relating to all living and fossil organisms on Earth is part of evolutionary theory.
Cynic,
Scientists lie because they are hood-winked by Satan, and part of his master conspiracy preparing the way for the Antichrist. However if creationists start insisting we burn scientists at the stake, they might lose the toys scientists are so good at inventing. (I suspect many of them really do not see the difference between science and magic….)
Kevin shares a characteristic of the “type”, which I think is not mentioned in the bible, known as creationist: profoundly ignorant of biology and several other sciences.