Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Knoxville News Sentinel of Knoxville, Tennessee. It’s titled Evolution is not supported by data. The newspaper has a comments feature, but you can’t see them (if there are any) without a subscription.
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 James. This is the second time we’ve featured one of his letters. The first was less than a month ago: #597: Creator Is Revealed. James seems to be a real estate broker, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Are Earth, energy and time sufficient to produce life? To be useful, energy must be used in measure and precisely. Uncontrolled energy is destructive to life and to its formation.
Ah yes, uncontrolled energy is destructive to life. That’s the well-established 69th law of thermodynamics, which explains why sunlight makes life on Earth impossible. James knows his stuff! Then he quotes some science for us:
“In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested (processes which produce an organic substance) spontaneous dissolution is much more probable than spontaneous synthesis” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, August 1954). The result of Earth, energy and time is dissolution, not life. This is as true now as when the article was written.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! A single sentence, with no context, from 1954. Then James quotes another irrefutable scientific finding:
“In practice, Darwin conceded, the fossil record was much too spotty to demonstrate those gradual changes (required by his theory), though he was confident that they (intermediate fossils) would eventually turn up. But a century of digging since then has only made their absence more glaring” (Newsweek, March 29, 1982).
Wow — there are no transitional fossils! Shall we link to Wikipedia again? Sure — here’s their List of transitional fossils. Let’s read on:
Sufficient intermediates to validate evolution are still missing. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University, assesses the real question about evolution, the efficacy of random mutation, from the available scientific data. Read his books, his critics and his responses. Behe is a superb scientist.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! James mentioned Michael Behe in his last letter. Not only is he a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow, he was the Discoveroids’ star witness in the Kitzmiller case — see Kitzmiller v. Dover: Michael Behe’s Testimony. And he’s also a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. His colleagues at Lehigh are so impressed by his brilliance that they publicly disassociated themselves from him by issuing this statement: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”. James continues:
Energy is destructive unless precisely used. The general theory of evolution is not supported by the data. The secularist looks to science. The problem is that the secularist is not listening to what science is saying.
As he has done before, James carefully refers to the general theory of evolution, and doesn’t confuse it with the special theory. At the end of his wonderful letter, he offers us some advice:
Yes, “Read a real science book,” one that deals honestly with what the data reveal about evolution and particularly the origin of life. Learn about the extreme precision of our universe and the unassailable uniqueness of Earth. Compare the Christian apologetic with the opposition, and appreciate the real source of life.
We hope that newspaper continues to publish letters from James. He’s fantastic!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.