Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Roanoke Star, a bi-weekly newspaper from Roanoke, Virginia. Technically, what we found isn’t a letter-to-the editor. It’s a column, but we’ll treat it as a letter. It’s titled Reflections of A Former Darwinist. The newspaper has a comments feature.
Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. But today it’s a little bit different. The writer is Dennis Garvin, who describes himself in his first paragraph:
I am a reasonably educated man. Valedictorian of my college class, honors graduate of medical school, product of a surgical subspecialty training program ranked in the top two in the nation.
We Googled around, and it looks like he’s a urologist. That’s enough for full-name treatment. Excerpts from the column will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
I was an intellectual, scientific, Darwinist atheist. Yet it was a deficit in the Darwin doctrine that drove me to question my atheism and, ultimately, to my belief in a Creator.
How intriguing! What was the deficit in the “Darwin doctrine” that changed Dennis’ mind? He tells us:
In my mid thirties, I was vexed by a question that, to many, might seem small. But it drove me crazy. Altruism. It existed. I had seen proof of its existence. Yet, it was completely counterintuitive to a Darwinist. Why would a man endanger himself to rescue a child he does not know? He is risking sacrificing himself (thereby denying the gene pool the benefit of his input) for a human creature with unknown genetic potential.
What a brilliant insight! According to Darwin, when a child not your own is imperiled, the sight should elicit laughter, or at least a shrug. No one should do anything to help anyone except his own offspring. Why didn’t this ever occur to us before? Let’s read on:
This is what set me off. By contrast, I had to conclude that, while altruism was nonsense in Darwinian terms, it was exactly consistent with the major religions of the world. So, with as open a mind as is possible in a smug atheist, I investigated my previous bias against religion and, effectively, a Creator.
Isn’t this exciting? What did Dennis learn from his investigation? We continue:
I learned that you can scientifically support Deism or atheism only if you allow yourself to be mired in the Newtonian concept of universal laws. The six days of Genesis’ creation is easily explained by Einstein’s theory of time dilation and the application of the Common Background Radiation left over from the Big Bang. It shows how the 15 billion years of the universe and the 6 days of Genesis are in perfect, even frighteningly precise, accord.
Whoa! How fast would the Earth need to be moving, relative to the rest of the universe, so that its inhabitants would experience 15 billion years in only six days? It’s a straightforward calculation. But our calculator can’t handle 365 days times 15 billion years, so we don’t have a good figure for the amount of time dilation. If we had that figure, we could plug it into a routine that will tell us out how fast Earth had to be moving. Anyway, it’s gotta be more than 99% of the speed of light. Maybe 99.9%, or even faster. Here’s more from Dennis:
Even the mystery of the Trinity has scientific logic if you apply slit lamp experiments, quantum mechanics and specifically the idea of phase entanglement. None of these generally accepted advances in science and physics proves the God of the Bible. But they do make it hard, indeed impossible, to scientifically reject Him. This still leaves you free to be an atheist; even God gives you that prerogative. Just don’t claim that modern science backs you up. It makes you look like a fool, just like I was.
We’re only about halfway through, but we’ve given you the good stuff. Go ahead, click over there to read it all. It will forever change you.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.