We don’t recall seeing as many whoppers in one place as we discovered in today’s letter-to-the-editor. It appears in the Daily Mining Gazette of Houghton, Michigan (population 7,708) in the northwestern portion of that state’s Upper Peninsula. The letter is titled Some evolution based in myth, and the newspaper has a comments feature.
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 Robert. 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!
Atheists reject the Bible’s history of creation but their theory of evolution is a creation myth without a creator. [Hee hee!] Natural selection does occur but not in unlimited ways that cause radical changes over long periods of time. It is impossible for reptiles to evolve into birds, non-human primates to evolve into human beings, etc.
Ah yes, the micro-macro mambo, described in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Then he says:
An evolutionist even admitted that a main function of DNA is to prevent evolution. [Huh?] There are limits to biological change, a scientific fact the theory of evolution contradicts. [It’s a fact!] Even Darwin said the idea that the eye was produced by natural selection was “absurd.” [Quote mining debunked in Evolution of the Eye.] He accepted atheistic evolution because the death of his daughter caused him to reject God.
Yes, that was Darwin’s only reason. Robert is just getting started. Next he tells us:
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. It’s more complex than the eye [Robert didn’t show his math] and isn’t fully understood by scientists. It is illogical to believe that the mindless forces of nature created DNA millions of years ago.
What is Robert saying? DNA is “more complex than the eye,” and if Darwin said the eye couldn’t evolve, then surely Darwin would have agreed that DNA couldn’t evolve either. Right! He continues:
Sir Arthur Keith wrote the introduction to the 100th edition of Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” He admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
Yeah, he “admitted” it. Except that the Wikipedia write-up on Arthur Keith totally debunks it — scroll to the heading “Spurious quotation.”
Robert ends his wonderful letter by invoking Stephen Hawking:
Stephen Hawking asked why there is something rather than nothing. “Spontaneous creation” was his atheistic answer that the creation created itself from nothing. That is impossible. In his book “A Brief History of Time,” Hawking did make a wiser comment: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Here’s an online copy of Hawking’s book: A Brief History of Time (pdf). We found Hawking’s “wiser comment” on page 65. However, for the next several pages, Hawking discusses alternatives, and that chapter ends with this:
So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?
So Robert finished with yet another example of quote-mining. And that’s the letter. Make of it what you will, dear reader.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.