Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Post-Bulletin of Rochester, Minnesota — home of the Mayo Clinic. It’s titled Darwinism is too often confused with evolution in debate of issue. 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. His first name is Rex. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Evolution and Darwinism are two different subjects.
Not really. But in our experience, what biologists call evolution is often derisively referred to by creationists as “Darwinism,” a pejorative term they’ve coined to suggest something like Marxism, as if the suffix “ism” brands it as an ideology and not a science. Is that what Rex has in mind? Alas, no. Stay with us, you’ll see:
The further the distance an individual is from the sciences, the stronger the illusion that evolutionary biologists are objective. Those who are most prone to idealize the objectivity of evolutionists are people who know almost nothing about science, people for whom it has become a kind of religion.
Rex implies that he is not distant from the sciences, therefore he is under no illusions about the defective thinking of biologists. Let’s read on:
Evolutionary thought has a long historical development with theology playing a primary role. [Aaaargh!!] Evolution cannot be understood without understanding the history of its development and the underlying “materialist religion,” which controls the science and evidential reasoning.
Uh huh, the theory of evolution developed out of theology. We continue:
Science confirms evolution, but this is confined to microevolution, which includes change and local adaptation and differentiation of populations. This is completely different from Darwinism.
Okay, now we see where this is going. Rex is dancing the micro-macro mambo, discussed in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Does Rex have anything new to say? Oh yeah! Here’s more:
The central thrust of Darwinian evolution is macroevolution — that bears can be transformed into whales — and science does not confirm this mythical set of process. Science does not confirm macroevolution or speciation, which is called transmutation.
Transmutation? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s a word from alchemy — using the philosophers’ stone to transmute base metals into gold. Or maybe he’s thinking of Dracula’s transmutation into a vampire. Moving along:
Macroevolution is a myth borrowed from fictions dating back to the dark ages. Macroevolution (Darwinism) is superstition. Conclusions drawn from “imagined processes” and never determined by actual data or actual findings are called superstition.
No doubt about it — when Rex uses the term “Darwinism” he’s thinking about Dracula. Another excerpt:
Darwinian “processes” of macroevolution are “umbilically linked to the imagination” — not scientific data.
Those quote marks are in Rex’s letter. We don’t know what they mean. And now we come to the end:
Macro-evolutionary processes cannot be detailed, documented, verified, validated or tested. These are mythical processes exclusively. So let’s not confuse evolution science with Darwinism.
That’s good advice. Thanks, Rex.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.