And another.. (which wasn't published... the cowards)
December 9, 2005
Editor
The Hugoton Hermes
P.O. Box 849
522 South Main
Hugoton, KS 67951
Dear Editor,
While Mr. Scott made use of his Constitutionally protected right to preach on this forum, I plan to use my equally protected right to correct his errors and perhaps even teach.
If Mr. Scott’s dictionary does indeed define religion as he states, then it uses the word as a very broad brush. The primary definition that the three dictionaries I consulted differed by specifically mentioning a supernatural power, and I’m certain that this is what most people think of when they hear the word.
Mr. Scott then attempts to paint the theory of Evolution as a religion. Most of us soon see the absurdity that results when we realize that astrophysics, astronomy, geology and many other fields of study suddenly become religions headed by their respective “founding fathers” acting as Popes, and Mother Nature as the head of it all. Oh well, Mr. Scott can believe what he wants, and obviously does.
One of the many mistakes Mr. Scott made in his letter was a quote that he attributed to Sir Arthur Keith, whom he claimed also wrote a foreword to The Origin of Species. I’m afraid he mixed in part of a quote from a Prof. Louis Bounoure with an unverified “quote” by Sir Keith. Sir Keith certainly didn’t believe in special creation as Mr. Scott seems to assert. He was an evolutionist.
Continuing, there haven’t been 100 editions of “Origin of the Species” as Mr. Scott claims, although several creationist websites assert that there was a 100th anniversary edition that Sir Keith wrote for. Alas, no one has come up with a copy, which is odd considering that it would have come out in 1959, and books that age aren’t uncommon. Too bad that Sir Keith died 4 years before this book was supposed to have come out.
Mr. Scott’s mention of the Piltdown man is interesting. It demonstrates the power behind science. Hoaxes get caught. Not like religious hoaxes like the Shroud of Turin, or the vast numbers of “splinters from the Cross” that fill churches in Europe. As Mark Twain said, “there must be enough splinters of the True Cross to build a ship!” At least science corrects itself.
Mr. Scott’s quote of some Grant Jeffery points more towards Mr. Jeffery’s ignorance than any problems with evolution. Scientists have found thousands of “links” that demonstrate that species change over time. Perhaps Mr. Jeffery meant that once a link is found, it’s not “missing” anymore and that’s why we haven’t found any missing ones. Perhaps. I’d suggest Mr. Scott do some internet research on what scientists have found concerning whales, for example.
We see that tired old analogy of “Dogs don’t produce cats” dragged out again too. I inform Mr. Scott that biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. We observe this all the time. And we’ve also found evidence not only in the fossil record, but the actual DNA between species.
That “ Cow giving birth to a lamb” business is more the religious matter, as it’s related as a miracle by Josephus in his 'Wars of the Jews'. At no time has science ever made such outrageous claims. Look closely. It’s the creationists building straw men to beat upon. I won’t even bother wondering what kind of body parts God has if we’re made in his image.
Evolution does a much better job of answering questions such as “Which came first, man or birds?”. We have fossilized birds tens of millions of years older than the earliest humanoid fossil. But Genesis can’t make up its mind. Consider the “birds first” version of Genesis 1:20-21, then 1:26-27 with the “human first” version of Genesis 2:7-8 then 2:19.
There is a term called abiogenesis that Mr. Scott has confused with evolution, as he illustrated with his Cadillac fantasy. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis of life from non-biological matter, and I suppose that’s where he made his mistake. Evolution doesn’t even address the origins of life. It specifically addresses only the origin of species. It’s odd how creationists keep confusing the two, and while they are attacking one, seem to feel they are bashing the other.
Finally though, Mr. Scott abandons his diatribe against evolution, and demonstrates his ignorance of the Constitution. It’s odd that he asserts that evolution is a religion, then demands that we “prohibit the free exercise thereof…” which is of course, unconstitutional. Even more interesting is his assertion that we have a “one-way” wall protecting the church from the state. A short study of history shows that our founding fathers were well aware of the evils that happened to bloodstained Europe when church and state climbed into each others pockets. At least now, in America, a change of government doesn’t cause the slaughters that used to result when Protestant or Catholic kings swapped places. We don’t need an American Taliban.
Mr. Scott would be hard pressed to point out any Amendments in the Constitution that can also be found in the Bible. The only time the Constitution even mentions God is during the use of conventional dating practice with “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. It’s a Biblical principle to mention the Lord in a document only when referring to a date?
It’s difficult to see how Mr. Scott can try to revise history by claiming that these authors intended this to be a Christian nation from any evidence he can find in the Constitution. Perhaps he’s heard of the “Treaty of Tripoli”, a document signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate in 1797 which states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;….” . I think that says it clearly enough.
Clearly, Mr. Scott believes deeply in his faith, but he should get used to people defending science and the separation of church and state if his weapons of choice continue to be false analogies, misquotes, misconceptions and unsupported assertions.
Sincerely,
Kirk Mitchell
No comments:
Post a Comment