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 David. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!
I want to respond to a letter that argued the undeniable existence of evolution. My point is not to argue against the existence of evolution. An organism adapting to its environment over time makes some sense to me.
Then what’s David’s problem? He explains:
However, mutations typically do not result in a more complex and more sophisticated organism, which is the standard for change as defined by Darwin. Perhaps Darwin was too aggressive with his theory and mutations are the key element for a limited type of evolution.
Okay, we know where this is going. David is dancing the micro-macro mambo. We debunked that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted, where we said:
If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. … The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.
After that he tells us:
According to Scripture, God created only one man and one woman while allowing the reproductive process to propagate the species. So how did humanity end up with so many diverse skin colors and facial features and physical characteristics? Evolution might be the reason for this outcome. Humanity’s outward physical appearance responded to the environmental elements. This makes some sense for me. So to this limited degree, I accept the existence of evolutionary processes. I do reject the notion of evolution from one species to a more complex species.
Interestingly, David isn’t using the typical creationist expressions “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution.” It’s possible that he never ran across the websites that promote such nonsense, and he has groped his way toward the same ideas on his own. Very impressive! He continues:
I know without doubt [Hee hee!] that evolution is not the source of life. Creation is the only process that could have resulted in the bounty of animals and plant life on this Earth that exists in a perfect balance.
Uh huh, perfect balance. That’s why species never go extinct. Let’s read on:
Unlike evolution, the creation process has been demonstrated and is documented in the Bible.
Ooooooooooooh! This should be good. David says:
There are four eyewitness accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) where Jesus fed thousands of people when there was only enough food for a dozen. Where do you think the fish and bread came from? Out of thin air? Yes. Jesus (God who had taken on the form of man) created food out of thin air in sufficient quantities to turn a meal for 12 into a feast for thousands. What other explanation is there?
Wow — he’s right! See Feeding the multitude. And now we come to the end:
The creation of matter (something) from nothing is a challenge for the human mind to grasp. This is why He is a Lord worthy of our love, thanks and worship.
Well, dear reader, you can’t dispute the miracle of the loaves and fishes, can you? Then why do you cling to your godless theory of evolution?
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.