Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa. It’s titled Put evolution theory up for debate. The newspaper has a comments feature, and so far the letter hasn’t been doing very well.
We don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians, preachers, or other public figures), but we have an exceptional situation here. The letter-writer is Steve Brouard, described at the end as having some association with the Quad-City Creation Science Association. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Sid Machalek’s Aug. 16 letter mentions two court cases to justify the rejection of intelligent design for public schools.
He’s probably talking about this: Keep science in schools; creatonism [sic] in church. The two court cases it mentions are Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and also McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education — a 1981 case challenging a “balanced treatment” law which mandated that creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution.
It’s not surprising that creationists are furious whenever the courts apply the Constitution to preserve the separation of church and state, because creationists don’t like the Constitution. They prefer theocracy, so that Oogity Boogity is the law of the land, and it must be taught in schools. Okay, we know what has upset today’s letter-writer. This is what he says about it:
First, why does a scientific theory hide behind judges and the threats of lawsuits to justify itself? Free and open debate is what advances science and learning, by discussing the meaning of available evidence.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There is so much wrong with that paragraph. First, science isn’t “hiding behind judges and the threats of lawsuits.” It’s perfectly capable of standing on its own, based on the evidence. It’s creationists who are trying to legislate their nonsense into places where it doesn’t belong. And of course, “free and open debate” is what science is all about — but because creationists have no evidence, there’s no reason to waste time in science class with their nonsense.
That was Steve Brouard’s first point. Let’s read on:
Second, the idea of a creator is not detrimental to science, but has been a benefit throughout history. Consider the following disciplines of science founded by creationists: Physics – Isaac Newton; Biology – John Ray; Microbiology – Louis Pasteur; Chemistry – Robert Boyle; Genetics – Gregor Mendel; etc.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There is nothing — absolutely nothing — about Genesis or creationism in the scientific work of those men. Yes, they were religious, but their belief in the supernatural was irrelevant to their science. That was Steve Brouard’s second point. His letter continues:
Third, I agree science should be taught in science class. But, we should leave out falsehoods, including Haeckel’s fake embryonic drawings; Vestigial organs and junk DNA, now known to be active and useful; the debunked 98.8 percent similarity of chimp and human DNA, based on small fragments of DNA; and homology which is circular reasoning.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve discussed all of those clunkers before — except “homology which is circular reasoning.” Wikipedia says that Homology refers to “the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different species. … Evolutionary theory explains the existence of homologous structures adapted to different purposes as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor.” Where’s the circular reasoning? Is it less circular to declare that such similarities are caused by an imaginary common designer?
That was Steve Brouard’s third point. Here’s more from the creationist letter-writer:
Fourth, evolution is a basis for theology – the religion of atheism. By faith, atheists believe the first cell popped into existence by itself and a jellyfish-like creature morphed into a T-Rex. There is no science for these beliefs – only speculation.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But of course, there’s lots of scientific evidence for the doctrine that life and all of its genetically-linked variations were magically poofed into existence during Genesis week.
The creationist’s final point is in the last paragraph of his letter:
Fifth, as a defender of faith in evolution, how about a public debate? Enlist a professor from a local college to help. Eric Hovind will be in the Quad-Cities on Nov. 22-23. We formally challenge you to a public evolution/ID debate. Contact us at [phone number].
Oooooooooooooh — a challenge! Is anyone brave enough — or foolish enough — to step into the lion’s den? Probably not. So the Quad-City Creation Science Association will declare victory. And rightly so!
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.