Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The State Press of Tempe, Arizona. It’s titled VP Mike Pence, evolution and the facts in our schools. The newspaper has a comments section.
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 Arden, and he’s described as “an aspiring pediatric pharmacist.” Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!
Vice President Mike Pence has taken a lot of flak this past week for following the “Billy Graham Rule” with his wife, and it isn’t the first time his Christian worldview has come under attack.
Arden’s letter links to Mike Pence’s ‘Billy Graham Rule’ has Internet yelling sexism, which informs us that Pence “never ate alone with a woman other than his wife, Karen. Pence also said he wouldn’t attend an event where alcohol would be served without her by his side.” That seems prudent for a politician or anyone else who may be the subject of journalistic scrutiny.
Back to Arden’s letter. He says:
While his living above reproach may not cause the majority to have a problem with Pence, his other comments have. Recently, a video resurfaced of Pence on the House floor saying he did not believe in evolution and wanted children exposed to its pitfalls. The media went into an uproar — calling him “stupid,” “backwards,” even a “threat.” So why does the classroom censure alternatives to evolution when there are compelling scientific reasons to discredit Darwinism?
Aha — the aspiring pediatric pharmacist finally gets around to it. He claims “there are compelling scientific reasons to discredit Darwinism.” Now the fun begins. He tells us:
Before I continue, let me point out that creationists believe in speciation and microevolution. These phenomena are seen in our modern world and they are undeniable — the speciation of dog breeds and the microevolution of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteria, for example. But these concepts are extremely different than macroevolution, evolution above the species level, evolution that contends that single-celled organisms became humans over a period of millions of years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Arden is dancing the Micro-Macro Mambo — which we described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. But he appears not to know what the word “species” means, because he spoke of “the speciation of dog breeds.” It would seem that “an aspiring pediatric pharmacist” isn’t required to take any courses in biology.
Arden’s next paragraph babbles about DNA, and asserts that the first protein couldn’t have naturally come into existence — and for the appearance of authority, he links to an article at ol’ Hambo’s creationist website. We’ll skip that. Then he claims that the evolution of flight is impossible:
Additionally, the evolutionist must face the idea that flight developed three times independently — ornithological species, mammals such as bats and insects. However, the anatomical changes needed for a limb to become a wing prove contradictory in light of evolution. Firstly, solid bones for running would need to gradually become hollow bones for flight. In the intermediate stages, land animals would be more prone to fractures, have decreased “jump strength” for escaping prey and be conveyed no perceived advantage, predatorial or otherwise. How can evolution answer?
Wowie — wings couldn’t evolve. Powerful stuff, huh? Arden continues:
These are just two simple examples of why life should not be reduced to a contingent event, and there are more for those who solicit answers.
Arden has lots of reasons why life isn’t dependent on mere chance. Let’s read on:
Overall, the quest for human origins won’t be answered overnight, but a collegiate atmosphere should have an open invitation for discourse, for the sharing of varying perspectives and for the dismissal and acceptance of knowledge.
That sounds reasonable. We should always have a “collegiate atmosphere” so that those with an Oogity Boogity perspective “have an open invitation for discourse.” The letter ends on a generous, open-minded note:
Students are encouraged to create an informed decision about abortion, physician-assisted suicide, minimum wage, genetic engineering and the list goes on. So why not let students, who you call creative, self-directed, game changers, decide for themselves what they are to believe about this issue?
Yes, let the kiddies decide! Great letter, Arden!
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.