Below is the completed letter that I sent to the Advocate. After much agonising on what to cut out and what to leave in I settled on something that I hope is not too dry or wordy.
I write in response to Name withheld (NW) and Amee Glass (AG) the Advocate Jan. 6
I suggest that NW read my letter again – a “scattergun tirade of complaints” against god? I complemented two churches on their good behaviour and criticised two pastors for their claims.
Now on to the misconceptions and misinformation raised; modern evolutionary theory is approximately 150 years old, although evolutionary ideas were postulated as long ago as 6OO BC. NW uses the term theory in a pejorative sense, like it’s just an idea.
In science,however, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties “facts” together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong – it is never proven correct.
The theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; countless and ongoing peer reviews- nothing has disproved it. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. For example, Darwin knew nothing of genetics, but genetics compliments and supports evolutionary theory.
It is interesting to note that AG quotes biologist Michael Denton, whose later works assumed an evolutionary process as a given, contradicting his earlier beliefs.
NW claims there are innumerable examples of irreducibly complex structures but quotes only the eye, which modern biologists describe a process of evolution for, supported by evidence found across a range of current species. As for it being a perfect image capturing device, which species, which eye?
NW needs to present one example of irreducible complexity that has not been soundly criticised and debunked by the scientific community.
NW’s statement about being descended from monkeys displays a further misunderstanding. We are not descended from monkeys, monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. We are actually more closely related to Chimpanzee’s differing genetically by less than 2%.
NW asks for evidence of one species changing into another – first we look to the fossil record – there are 139 fine grained species to species transitional fossils. This is actually far more than Darwin expected due to specific instances in which fossils form – one recently discovered example is Tiktaalik(2004). But if you want current observed changes from one species to another we can look to plant(Evening Primrose) and insect(Fruit fly) examples.
AG, infers that I said bikes and cars were the direct result of evolution. I actually said that they were the result of the scientific method or thinking. AG, also states the “intricacies of the human body show evidence of design”, yet presents none.
Here’s hoping they print it.
Related posts:
- 150th Anniversary of Origin of Species Today marks the 150th Anniversary of the publishing of...
- Welcome “Homologous Legs” to the ANZAB crew Homologous Legs has joined ANZAB (Australian and New Zealand Atheist...
- Atheism – a religion? Why is it that some religious proponents treat or label...
Loading ...
Once again, Sean, you have written an extremely tight letter. Well done. I hope it gets published.
You still need to collect from the last time, don't be late.
I second Fiery. I hope this turns into an ongoing dialog.
I don't know about a dialog. Lets see how long it takes before it turns nasty and I get a brick through my window. I have been toughening my forehead with board breaking though, in preparation for the inevitable banging of the head against the brick wall
Yea! I hope they publish it! You'll have to post if they do and anyone responds. And yes, be careful of the bricks through the window or burning crosses in your front yard!
great letter Sean- I hope they have the balls to 'debate' with you- although any debate regarding Evolutionary theory is within the theory and not asbout it in my opinion. The educational approach is good- the more people that read the letter and realise that what their pastors/priests/vicars etc etc are telling them is a lie then the better the world will be
I found the letter nearly perfect, however I probably would have skewered NW by pointing out that gravity and cells existence are just a theory.
Yes I did think of pointing those out but wanted to be more educational in my approach – not that they will listen, but other might.
Well unfortunately it didn't get published – too long perhaps? Too dry? Anywho all is not lost because a local biologist wrote in and tore strips off them – will post letter when I can access a scanner.
I also got another letter from Pastor Kuss directed at me where he continues to embarass himself in a public forum.
Too many facts, I suspect. It would have made the paper unduly heavy.
They think?
Touché!
Well done Sean, final letter is excellent. Hope it gets published.
I'm currently drafting a post in response to some stupidity I read yesterday (that makes 6 drafts in process) I will be linking to this and the original letter post as part of trying to educate the uneducated. This is the words one of the people used: "the myth of evolution", yes you read it right, they called it a myth. Oh the irony!
[...] NOT, repeat NOT, a myth. It is as good a scientific theory as most other scientific theories (check Sean’s post and the comments on this one for some further guidance. I’ve even put a few links there for [...]
Spot on sir, and I'll 3rd and 4th Fiery. Not that I, for one second, believe it will make them think twice about their idiocy, but nobody could accuse you of not presenting them with the opportunity to do so.
It's always convenient for theists to refer to theories of evolution, and never the FACT of evolution. Take gravity, for instance. There is the fact that when you drop a ball it falls to the earth. The theories of gravity (There are two: one by Newtown, the other by Einstein) try to explain and predict it, but just because there are multiple theories (Einstein's theory of relativity is still being tested today) does not rebuke the fact that the effect of gravity exists so don't go thinking you can fly.
In the same way there is the fact of evolution that all living things evolved to their current status evident by the enormous fossil catalog, amongst other good reasons (why are species related? Panda's thumb? etc). The theories of evolution (and there are quite a few, not just one) try to argue how this evolution occurred and progressed, and to this day there are still new theories appearing. However, it's important to remember that even while these theories are being compared and tested that, like with gravity, the fact of evolution still remains.
It's typical for creationist to refer to the theories of evolution when in discussion but we need to move away from that and start looking at the fact.
That's their game though to define the debate, then chuck in red herrings, shift goal posts