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 Ivan. 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’d like to respond to Mark Winegar’s letter to the editor on Jan 11, titled “Evolution is not a hypothesis, legislators.”
This is the letter Ivan is talking about. It’s from someone who expects to lobby against any creationist legislation that might pop up, so it’s inevitable that creationists would be upset. Ivan says:
The reason many people and scientists are challenging the “Grand Theory” of evolution is because of the discovery of new substantiated information about our world that was unknown 50 years ago. [Ooooooooooooh! New information!] Mr. Winegar [the earlier letter-writer] refers to one example of this, that being the fact that the human genome has been sequenced enabling new medical research. The 3 billion DNA base pairs in the human genome contain all the information needed to build and maintain our bodies.
How does that help Ivan? He explains:
Yes, but that coded information which is present in each cell of a person’s body hardly points to random naturalistic development. Rather such highly structured engineering information points to an intelligent designer.
Ooooooooooooh! It was the intelligent designer — blessed be he! Ivan continues:
Good luck developing such intricate complexity in 5 billion years of chance occurrences. The probability of developing even a single living cell with all mechanisms coming into function simultaneously to sustain itself is statistically zero.
Gasp! The probability is zero! Let’s read on:
Neither evolution nor creation can be verified by scientific methods because we can’t observe the beginning. [Yeah! Were you there?] But as we learn more about how complex and intricate the human body is, it’s taking a lot more faith to suppose we just evolved by chance.
And if evolution requires faith, Ivan doesn’t want any part of it. He finishes his letter with a perfectly reasonable suggestion:
Students should at least have an opportunity to study evidences for both evolution and intelligent design in an objective, open-minded, and tolerant manner.
That makes so much sense, only a fool would oppose it. Don’t you agree, dear reader?
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.