Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the fifth biggest-selling regional evening newspaper in Britain, the Shropshire Star of Ketley, in Shropshire. Charles Darwin was born in Shropshire. The letter is titled No proof of our beginnings, and the newspaper has a comments section.
Because today’s 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, and we’ve written about three of his letters before — see #635: The Fossil Record Fails, and before that #543: Dem Bones, Dem Bones, and before that #427: Purpose and Hope. We’ll give you a few excerpts from his newest letter, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Okay, here we go:
AC Mitchell’s letter dated March 27 certainly raises some interesting points, arguing that evolution explains the diversity of life but not its beginning. Put another way he is saying that evolution explains the survival, not the arrival of the species.
We can’t find that earlier letter, but it doesn’t matter. It’s quite true that Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain the beginning of life. Leaping upon what he sees as a fatal weakness in the theory, David says:
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species suggests that the origin is important. [Darwin never tried to explain it.] Some evolutionists do claim that the origin of life is not part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the origin of life in the chapters on evolution.
David spends several paragraphs babbling about how important the origin of life is. Then he tells us:
Atheistic evolution by its very name [given by creationists] and nature will not countenance the existence of God [Huh?] so has to explain everything by naturalistic means. But everything cannot be explained this way.
Wowie — some things just don’t have a naturalistic explanation — and they never will! David continues:
Life certainly cannot. Even if you get all the ingredients together in the right quantities you do not get a living being.
He’s right. You can dump all the right elements into a dish and you still won’t get life. That ought to tell you something. If it doesn’t, you’re obviously not as smart as David. To prove how smart he is, in one of the longest sentences we can recall from one of these letters — he tells us the only way there is to get a living being:
Life can only be given by the great life giver, outside of and creator of time and matter and power, the eternal, all knowing, all powerful spirit who calls himself God and who has revealed himself to mankind in the person of his son, Jesus Christ, who walked this earth two thousand years ago as recorded by well attested historical documents which we have today.
David doesn’t describe those “well attested historical documents” — but they obviously exist so we won’t concern ourselves with them. Let’s read on:
I know who I believe. [He knows!] He gives meaning and purpose to each human being, He values them for who they are, not how they look or what they can do or how much they earn or the colour of their skin.
Can you figure out who it is that David is talking about? If not, he provides the answer for you. We don’t want to take away the thrill of reading it for yourself, so we’ll skip that part of his paragraph. Hint — you won’t be disappointed.
And now we come to the end. David puts a question to the earlier letter-writer:
Which theory of the origins of matter, movement, time, life and hope does AC Mitchell commend?
More importantly — which theory do you commend, dear reader?
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.