Date: Fri Dec 17 1993 18:30:24 To: All Subj: Anti-evolution letter EVOLUTION

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Date: Fri Dec 17 1993 18:30:24 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Anti-evolution letter EVOLUTION ------------------------------- Here is an anti-evolution letter written to a local paper (the _Illinois Times_) in response to a very good evolution/creation article. Below, I pick it apart. Fire and Water To the editor: Your November 24, 1993 feature entitled "The evolution solution?" was a thought-provoking article. The "spin" of the article was such that evolution is a science and creation is of a religious nature. It is along these lines that I direct my comments. Evolution is advanced as a scientific theory, yet in reality it possesses no scientific basis. In order for a scientific theory to be true, one must be able to measure it, observe it, and repeat it. Neither creation nor evolution can meet these tests--hence, neither can be thought of as scientific theories. They both should be viewed as scientific models. ...It is amazing that scientists, educators, and the media continually portray creation as religious and evolution as a scientific fact. Actually the opposite is true. Evolution is much more religious than creation. Evolution is a world view. It is a philosophy of life and meaning. Evolution is an attempt to explain th eorigin an development of everything without God, making it an atheistic religion. Evolution has to be accepted by faith. In addition, it serves as the basic philosophy for most of the world's major religions. ...As for Springfield School District 186, the article stated that the teaching of evolution is not controversial and school officials want to keep it that way. If the teaching of evolution is not controversial in District 186, it is probably because the teaching of creation has effectively been banned from the curricula in the name of church-state separation. Upon examining one high school biology book currently in use, I found a whole chapter on evolution and about two lines on creation. What a shame this is. If only District 186 administrators and teachers would look, they would find books that deal with creation- evolution from a scientific point of view, books which attempt to evaluate the physical evidence for creation from the relevant scientific fields without reference to the Bible or other religious literature. It only seems fair to me tha tif evolution is to be taught in our public schools, scientific creation should also be taught. The article also made reference to the Evolution and the Nature of Science Institute (ENSI). This outfit sounds like the creationist's worst nightmare! The article seemed to project the ENSI as a place for teachers to learn how to blend creation with evolution. The two are as compatible as fire and water. ...It is my hope that the SSU professor of biology and environmental studies who was quoted in the article will someday open his biology textbooks and find a disclaimer on the first page stating, "Creation is a fact, a favorite argument of those who promote teaching evolution as science." James R. Hartwig Springfield ========================================================================== Date: Fri Dec 17 1993 18:31:22 From: David Bloomberg To: All Subj: Anti-evolution letter, picked apart EVOLUTION ------------------------------- In a msg to All on , James Hartwig writes: DB> Evolution is advanced as a scientific theory, yet in reality it DB> possesses no scientific basis. In order for a scientific theory to be DB> true, one must be able to measure it, observe it, and repeat it. Neither DB> creation nor evolution can meet these tests--hence, neither can be DB> thought of as scientific theories. They both should be viewed as DB> scientific models. As often is the case with those against evolution, it seems Mr. Hartwig understands very little about it. He says the evidence for the theory cannot be measured, observed, or repeated. This is simply untrue. The fossil record has been, and is still being, measured and observed, and finds within that record have been repeated a great many times over the years. The theory of evolution makes falsifiable predictions about what should be found, which is a true hallmark of any scientific theory, and those predictions have been borne out again and again. DB> ...It is amazing that scientists, educators, and the media DB> continually portray creation as religious and evolution as a scientific DB> fact. Actually the opposite is true. Evolution is much more religious DB> than creation. Evolution is a world view. It is a philosophy of life DB> and meaning. Evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and DB> development of everything without God, making it an atheistic religion. Evolution does not, as Mr. Hartwig asserts, "attempt to explain the origin and development of everything without God." The existence, or lack thereof, of a deity simply does not come into play. And if Mr. Hartwig truly understood the theory, he would realize that it only considers what has happened to life after it began -- it does not address the actual beginning of life. DB> Evolution has to be accepted by faith. No. Evolution is accepted based on evidence. DB> Upon examining one high school biology book currently in use, I found a DB> whole chapter on evolution and about two lines on creation. What a shame DB> this is. Yes, it is a shame that the topic of creationism is even brought up in a high-school textbook. DB> The article also made reference to the Evolution and the Nature of DB> Science Institute (ENSI). This outfit sounds like the creationist's worst DB> nightmare! The article seemed to project the ENSI as a place for teachers DB> to learn how to blend creation with evolution. The two are as compatible DB> as fire and water. The article (which the people reading this response have never read) actually does no such thing, and neither does ENSI. It was mentioned that ENSI can show teachers that evolution does not, as some would have us believe, mean that there cannot be a God. It most certainly does NOT try to blend evolution and creationism.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank