Creationist Letters

[Brian-M]

There seems to be a creationist debate brewing in the "Your Letters" section of my local paper. I first noticed it about a month ago, and was tempted to send in a response, but decided it wasn't worth the effort. I don't usually read the letters section, but I was flicking through last Thursday's local paper this morning before throwing it away (garbage day today) when I noticed some more...

Try looking at hen's Egg

Mr Gray (The Express, 22 April) says evolution is an observed fact and as well a very strong theory supported by countless lines of evidence.

Let's look at a hen's egg.

It has the yolk, the white albumen and the shell.

Moisture and air can pass through the shell.

A fertilized egg hatches in 21 days, during which time the germ of a chicken consumes the yolk and white until it fills the entire shll.

It then punctures the air cell on the big end of the egg.

There is enough air in the air cell for six hours.

Just time for the chicken to pick at the shell with its special pecking beak and emerge from the shell.

As I understand the theory of evolution everything developed by chance, not design.

I wonder how many eggs the first hen had to lay until she got it right.

DJ Auchterlonie, Trafalgar.

More holes than Swiss cheese

In response to Ron Bernardi (The Express, 6 May).

The theory of evolution is the desperate attempt of those who refuse to acknowledge God to find some explanation for the universe without him.

As a theory, it has more holes than a Swiss cheese in a rat's nest.

It is not science, but a belief system (aka religion).

If any Christian were to suggest that every school child in Australia should be forced to learn the doctrines of Christianity, there would e an uproar from some circles.

Yet every child is force-fed the tenants of the religion called "evolution", and because it is masquerading as science that is supposed to be acceptable.

Reverend Lynn Fowler, Churchill.

Debate about evolution continues

Thank you, Mr Bernardi, for stating so succinctly the reason evolution is rejected by Bible-believing Christians.

But I think you have missed an important point.

Evolutionist scientists cannot claim to be free of faith.

To believe in evolution takes faith.

In the beginning there was a big bang.

Don't know how. Don't know why. I heard that stated in the planetarium in Melbourne only a few months back.

In fact, I have a kids book on the theory of evolution on my bookshelf.

Its opening words are, "In the beginning there was nothing at all then in the first moment out of nothing came something. Who knows how? Who knows why?" (Earth Story by Eric Maddern).

Interestingly, creation-believing scientists are exactly that.

Scientists, and they are interested in the world's beginnings in order to better research and serve humanity effectively today.

Their base premise is that there is order, logic and reason within our world's systems. This approach has been the key to many incredible finds.

The scientific evidence, properly interpreted, fits the Biblical account of history, not evolutionary ideas about origins.

Today many scientists have had to sacrifice their faith in evolution in order to stay true to scientific laws and principles.

Evolutionists and creationist scientists each have to begin with a premise regarding our beginnings.

Was it "order to disorder" or "disorder to order"?

Each view takes faith. And you tell me which one of these is more scientific?

Personally, I'd rather pursue a scientific approach - one that doesn't deny the reality that accumulating mutations point to the sad reality of the degradation of the genome more and more babies are being born with genetic disorders than at any time in history - right in line with the Bible's account of a once very good creation now in bondage to decay.

And the supposed long ages of time are no help to evolution either, because no matter how long the evolution train has to run (see creation.com/train), it's always going to be the wrong way downhill.

K Erbs, Yallourn North.

*sigh* The ignorance is depressing. Does anyone else here get these kind of letters in their local papers?

 

[Piggy]

Does anyone else here get these kind of letters in their local papers?

All the time.

 

[John Jones]

Yes. They speak at length about topics they don't understand.

 

[Wowbagger]

Just for kicks, here is a sample of how I might respond to the letters:

If they seem snarkier than my usual replies, it probably has something to do with the fact that I am watching through all the Daria episodes they recently stuffed onto DVD*.

I wonder how many eggs the first hen had to lay until she got it right.

You seem to have the wrong idea about the theory. It is neither design nor chance. It is an algorithmic process:

Lots of the chicken's ancestors laid lots and lots of eggs, with varying degrees of survival success. Each generation slightly modified from the previous. Even today, that careful balance you refer to, sometimes varies – and it will probably continue to change, over time, whether you like it or not.

The theory of evolution is the desperate attempt of those who refuse to acknowledge God to find some explanation for the universe without him.

If it is soooooo desperate, why do you seem so threatened by it?

Maybe you're just jealous because scientists can develop answers for their questions, and you cannot.

To believe in evolution takes faith.

I think we are talking about two different things, though:

I am taking about The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, an idea utilized by practicing biologists to solve various scientific problems in their fields.

What you seem to have a problem with is atheism. The two are actually very different things.

Evolution, as a science, does not require faith. But, atheism does, in a sense: it requires the assumption that God does not exist, even though such non-existence can never be proven scientifically.

If you must publish vitriol against atheists, please be more upfront about your bigotry, and don't try to pretend you are debating science.

(* Damn you, different ones, and your infernal logic!!)

 

[pgwenthold]

As I understand the theory of evolution everything developed by chance, not design.

...

DJ Auchterlonie, Trafalgar.

So lets see, given the option that the biological theory of evolution has no problem accounting for the development of the egg, or that the theory of evolution as understood by DJ Auchterlonie from Trafalger which can't account for the development of the egg, who might I believe...

Sorry, DJ Auchterlonie, I'm leaning toward the biologists.

Although I do appreciate the fact that a creationist admits up that they are using a strawman version of evolution. Unfortunately, it is too bad that said creationist, when faced with such an insurmountable conundrum, doesn't question their understanding of the subject.

A lot of people like to bring up the "scientists determined that a bumblebee couldn't fly" nonsense as an attempted criticism, but that that just highlights their misunderstanding. Scientists didn't conclude that "the bumblebee couldn't fly." What they realized is that they could not account for how a bumblebee could fly by using their simple methods. What the exercise told them was NOT that physics was wrong, but that THEIR APPLICATION of the physics was incorrect.

And that's the difference between scientists and creationists. When scientists say, "My understanding of theory X does not account for Y and Z. I must not be understanding it right." The creationist says, "My understanding of theory X does not account for Y and Z. Therefore, Goddidit."

 

[sgtbaker]

As a golden rule; never try to argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think it's worthwhile responding to these fallacious arguments, because if no one responds it could be seen as tacit agreement. Of course, you won't convince any of these letter-writers, but there are always neutral readers monitoring the arguments.

Pointing up the flaws in the reasoning could be helpful, since they essentially are straw man arguments. You might also refer to Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, in which he refutes an argument similar to that of the hen's egg coming from chance. In his case it's the camera eye. Of course, the only thing that really involves chance in evolution is random mutation. Natural selection is in no way a matter of chance.

 

[Psi Baba]

I wonder how many eggs the first hen had to lay until she got it right.

I wonder how many games of 5-card Stud you'd have to play until you get a Straight or a Royal Flush. On the other hand, if you play 5-card Draw, Jacks Are Wild . . .

Why can't these people grasp this?

 

[sgtbaker]

I think it's worthwhile responding to these fallacious arguments, because if no one responds it could be seen as tacit agreement. Of course, you won't convince any of these letter-writers, but there are always neutral readers monitoring the arguments.

Pointing up the flaws in the reasoning could be helpful, since they essentially are straw man arguments. You might also refer to Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, in which he refutes an argument similar to that of the hen's egg coming from chance. In his case it's the camera eye. Of course, the only thing that really involves chance in evolution is random mutation. Natural selection is in no way a matter of chance.

It's seen as tactic agreement to those who are sure of their position, in the first place. A creationist will let faith take a rest, look at the evidence that is really out there when the creationist is ready to face it. Until then, they will only use confirmation bias.
If someone is reading the letters to a newspaper for their spiritual guidance, I'm afraid I would be no help to them anyway. If they can be moved to believe in ID because of someone's half cocked (no pun intended) theory about hen eggs, without so much as looking it up to see how accurate the information actually is, I am not so sure I want them arguing my case anyway.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You could save future creationist letter-writers lots of time by giving them this easy to use form letter.

[insert natural phenomenon] is incredibly complex. The odds of [said natural phenomenon] arising by chance have been [calculated by a scientist in a non-related field/estimated by my pastor/pulled out of my ass] to be 1 in [many millions/many billions/oodles]. Although I admit [I am not an expert in this field/I haven’t even bothered to google this/I am from Kansas], it is apparent to me that this could not have happened by chance alone, therefore [the only possible explanation is/we must acknowledge the power of/I will label my ignorance] God.

[I look forward to reading your feeble attempts to dispute this/Prove me wrong/Suck on that], [stupid atheists/EVILutionists].

 

[Brian-M]

All the time.

It's new to me. It could just be because of where I live, or possibly I just haven't noticed them before. Can you post some examples of the ones you get in your newspaper?

Just for kicks, here is a sample of how I might respond to the letters:

If they seem snarkier than my usual replies, it probably has something to do with the fact that I am watching through all the Daria episodes they recently stuffed onto DVD*.

Assuming that the newspaper would even bother to publish these responses, I doubt that any response is going to change anyone's opinion (especially given the time-lag involved in communicating through a weekly "your letters" section of a bi-weekly newspaper), so it's really not worth the effort writing in.

I was mostly just wondering if these kind of letters in newspapers were a common widespread phenomenon outside of places with a highly religious demographic, or just tend to sporadically pop up from time to time like a rash that comes and goes.

*Daria on DVD? It's been a long time since I've watched that cartoon. Now I'm tempted to go out and get myself a copy.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I wonder how many gods Yahweh's creator(s) had to create before he, she, it or them got Him right.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I wonder how many gods Yahweh's creator(s) had to create before he, she, it or them got Him right.

He certainly went through a number of personality changes in the Bible.

 

[Piggy]

It's new to me. It could just be because of where I live, or possibly I just haven't noticed them before. Can you post some examples of the ones you get in your newspaper?

Here's an excerpt from an editorial just a few weeks back:

As for science and education, while it is certainly the case that one can see the world in a grain of sand through the miracle of creation and consciousness, the religion of science can only see silicon dioxide, limestone or gypsum and the various other constituent compounds through its insistent predisposition for reductionism.

As mentioned earlier, the roots of its belief system (its religion) spring from philosophical precepts that have been worked and re-worked to exclude God.

Establishment science sometimes needs to be reminded that the order of the appearance of life on this planet espoused by Darwin, Lyell and others was also laid out in exactly the same order more than 3,000 years before they were born, in the first chapter of Genesis?

Mind you, that's from one of the paper's op-ed writers.

The stuff in the letters section is even less cogent.

I'll keep an eye out for anything that pops up in response to the Darwin bicentennial.

 

[Wowbagger]

Assuming that the newspaper would even bother to publish these responses, I doubt that any response is going to change anyone's opinion (especially given the time-lag involved in communicating through a weekly "your letters" section of a bi-weekly newspaper), so it's really not worth the effort writing in.

Well, my samples above did come out slightly meaner than my usual, more diplomatic, efforts. (Thank you, Daria!!)

So, if I were to actually send anything to the newspaper it would be more informative and slightly nicer in tone. It would be futile changing anyone's mind with the letters, but you can probably plant the seeds of doubt into some of the readers.

*Daria on DVD?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175190

 

[GrandMasterFox]

If they can be moved to believe in ID because of someone's half cocked (no pun intended) theory about hen eggs, without so much as looking it up to see how accurate the information actually is, I am not so sure I want them arguing my case anyway.

You fail to realize that the number one reason why ignorance is so easily spread is because people don't look things up.
The "E" in jrEf stands for education. If people looked stuff on their own, why would we need to educate them?

Now naturally some people are too far off that are a lost cause, but others are fencers that we may reason with who simply never heard the other side.

 

[marplots]

What might work with the 'it can't happen by chance' crowd would be to mention that they themselves happened by chance. Surely they are familiar with the many millions of sperm that led to their own birth?

And then, you expand to the same thing happening with the 300+ millions of us in the US (or wherever) and say that yes, you do think that lots of stuff happens by chance, including who gets with who and spins what roulette wheel to make the next generation of people.

The alternative path they would have to take is that every small thing is directed by God. This leads to other difficulties with free will and such.

 

[Maia]

Pointing up the flaws in the reasoning could be helpful, since they essentially are straw man arguments. You might also refer to Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, in which he refutes an argument similar to that of the hen's egg coming from chance. In his case it's the camera eye. Of course, the only thing that really involves chance in evolution is random mutation. Natural selection is in no way a matter of chance.

Well,there I cannot agree. Catastrophic events are all about chance, and they profoundly affect the final outcome of evolution. (We're here because of a comet that hit the earth 65 million years ago and allowed mammals the chance to flourish. We also wouldn't be here unless a very distant ancestor had survived the Pre-Cambrian extinction.) Dawkins is not very fond of acknowledging the importance of catastrophic events, which I think is unfortunate, but what's even more unfortunate is that we can't have a nuanced dialogue about these things in any kind of public debate because it just encourages idiots. Natural selection is the primary engine driving evolution, and this does not change no matter what. But I've actually seen videos on Youtube of Stephen Jay Gould talking about punctuated equilibrium theory being POSTED BY CREATIONISTS. (You see, if scientists disagree about anything, then that means that evolution doesn't exist...)

 

[arthwollipot]

Catastrophic events only modify the environment, not the organisms themselves. Organisms adapt through non-chance natural selection to the new environment.

 

[sgtbaker]

You fail to realize that the number one reason why ignorance is so easily spread is because people don't look things up.
The "E" in jrEf stands for education. If people looked stuff on their own, why would we need to educate them?

Now naturally some people are too far off that are a lost cause, but others are fencers that we may reason with who simply never heard the other side.

No it's not that I fail to realize that, I just think that very problem is why I wouldn't even work myself up about it. Only a person who does not understand evolution would accept the hen egg argument because it's simple and doesn't make them think any more than they have to. Actually understanding evolution takes effort to learn more about it. The people I am talking about, the people that find their faith in letters to the editor, do so because it's simple and suits their needs. Evolution cannot be fully explained in a quip. How deep into the process do you think you can go before you've lost their attention to their to-do list in their head?