Help responding to creationist editorial
Duwayne Anderson
I recently posted a request for information about Jay Gould
in order to formulate a rebuttal to an editorial that
appeared in the Bend, Oregon news paper. Several of you
were kind enough to E-mail information that I incorporated
into my letter to the editor. Thank you, to all who
replied. In another posting, James Lippard asked that I
post my letter, and I've done so at the end of this article.
Keep in mind that editors typically wont print long letters,
so I've tried to keep mine relatively short, without
hopelessly oversimplifying. Also, keep in mind that I'm a
physicist, not a biologist, so I may not have presented the
evidence the way a truly qualified scientist would. I
welcome suggestions on how I might have improved on my
letter.
Rather than submit the letter to the editor myself, I asked
a friend to submit it under her name. To understand why, I
need to give you a little background information. In
January a local creationist, named Laura Libby, wrote a
letter to the editor claiming that the scientific evidence
supports creationism. I responded with the following
editorial, which the paper published January 19, 1994 (this
is not the one I asked help for):
"In her editorial dated January 9, 1994, Laura Libby states
'The actual physical evidence clearly supports creation
rather than evolution.' This is a patently false statement.
The theory of evolution is arguably the most successful
theory of modern science. Evolution is supported by
physical evidence discovered by thousands of the world's
most capable scientists, and is the foundation of modern
biology.
The so-called theory of creationism posits that the earth is
roughly 6,000 years old, that species do not evolve, and
that there was a universal deluge roughly 4,000 years ago.
It fails as a true scientific theory because is makes no
testable predictions, and offers virtually no scientific
insight into the natural world around us. Unlike evolution,
creationism has never helped to treat diseases by showing
scientists how to evolve new strains of antibiotics. It has
never helped eradicate hunger by providing a framework for
scientists to evolve new strains of wheat and rice, or crops
that are resistant to disease and insect pests. It cannot
explain ice core data from the polar caps, or tree-ring
dates that go back nearly 10,000 years. It fails miserably
to explain why kiwis live only in New Zealand and kangaroos
live only in Australia. It cannot explain the fossil
evidence of dinosaurs, flightless birds, marsupials, blind
catfish, white polar bears, or the panda's thumb. In short,
as a scientific theory, creationism is an absolute, utter,
and complete failure.
The reason for its failure is that creationism is derived,
not from the physical evidence, but from ancient mythology.
For most of its adherents, creationism is just a thinly
disguised effort to circumvent our founding father's
intentions to keep church and state separate, by forcing
this mythology into the science class room."
We live in a small, rural community with a large contingent
of Fundamentalist Christians. You might expect that this
editorial has made me very few friends. As some of you
know, my wife and children attend the local Mormon church,
and I attend with them. It's a family thing to do, and I've
promised my wife that I will maintain the tradition.
February 6 was fast and testimony Sunday. Fast and
testimony Sunday is generally the first Sunday of the month,
and is reserved for members of the congregation to publicly
state their testimonies and spiritual experiences of the
past few weeks. Most members of the local congregation know
I'm a scientist, and that I accept the theory of evolution.
Several of these people have voiced their disagreement with
my January 19 editorial, and one woman decided to use her
time during "testimony" meeting to offer a partial rebuttal
to my newspaper editorial. The thrust of her testimony was
something like this: "People who believe in evolution are
sooo stupid. Why, Einstein was a creationist, and he was
the most intelligent man who ever lived, so why do all these
dummies who believe in evolution think they are smarter than
Einstein?"
I was sitting next to my 14 year-old son at the time, so I
leaned over and told him the woman was lying. I explained
to him that Einstein's religious beliefs were probably
closest to deism, and most Mormons would consider his
statements about a personal god to be atheistic. I asked
him if he wanted to read a book in which Einstein discusses
his religious beliefs. My son said yes, so I left early and
drove to work (where I keep the book) and returned to give
it to him.
When I got back, the meeting had let out and people were
standing around in the lobby. I spotted the woman who had
given her "testimony" that Einstein was a creationist, and
told her she had seriously misrepresented Einstein's
position. She said she had not, and that she had quoted
from some book (she was talking very fast, and I can't
recall the name of the book). I responded that I had a book
with some of Einstein's own writing, and handed it to her.
I'd underlined the part where Einstein blames some of
civilization's problems on belief in a personal god.
Well, she read the book for about 10 seconds, and then threw
it down and went into a rage. Seriously, I haven't seen
such a display in years. She stepped back about 10 feet
from me and began yelling at the top of her voice. Lets
see, she called me an atheist, said I was full of the devil,
and insinuated I'm going to hell. Then she stormed out of
the lobby. Within a few minutes she returned, with a
glazed-over crazy look in her eyes and tore into me again.
This time she said I was spreading dissension. From the
look in her eyes, I really think she was capable of any act
of violence. Aside from the public embarrassment, I was
really starting to worry about my physical safety. After
all, ever since Moses and Abraham, the religiously devout
have felt their ultimate test of faith is to kill someone
for god.
After she finished yelling at me, she went to the local
bishop and told him I'd been teaching evolution. This was
her second lie. All I'd done was stand there and get yelled
at. I had not been teaching anything. In fact, I couldn't
have gotten a word in edge-wise if I'd wanted to. Anyway,
the bishop decided to have a talk with me. "Evolution", he
said, "is clearly at odds with Mormon doctrine and I will
not tolerate someone defending or teaching it on church
property." Of course, I hadn't said one word about
evolution, I'd simply given the woman a book showing that
she had lied about Einstein's religious convictions. That,
however, seemed irrelevant to the bishop. I was told not to
bring up the subject of evolution, or discuss it with
members of the church, even if those members are lying about
scientific evidence and misquoting scientists. Lying, it
seems, is OK as long as it's faith promoting.
Anyway, it was a rather traumatic weekend. I'm not use to
being screamed at in public, or being told that I can't
express my opinion about certain matters. I told my wife
about the episode, and while she is sympathetic towards my
dilemma, she asked me not to stir the fire any more by
having my second editorial printed (I'd already mailed it
in). I called the editor of the paper and explained the
situation to him, and then asked that he not print the
editorial with my name. I've asked a friend to submit the
editorial under her name, which she did, but the second
editorial has not been printed yet.
Anyway, here is the rebuttal that I asked your help in
preparing:
"In his editorial, dated January 30, 1993, Richard Cade
states "Specifically, recent lectures by leading
evolutionist, Jay Gould of Harvard, freely acknowledge that
transitional forms which should exist in the trillions are
scant to nonexistent in fossil records." This statement is
false. In his book "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" Jay Gould
responds to such misrepresentations. He states: "it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--
whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as
admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional
forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
If you doubt the existence of transitional fossils, just
take a trip to the Smithsonian and see their exhibit on
equestrian and human evolution. There are also transitional
forms between birds and reptiles, and just a few weeks ago
scientists working in Pakistan discovered a new transitional
form between whales and land dwelling mammals. The theory
of evolution predicted such transitional forms, and their
discovery directly supports the idea that, over millions of
years, animals change their form in response to mutations
and environmental selection. Creationism, however, states
that God created every species exactly as we see them today,
and that those species do not evolve. Thus, every
transitional fossil is direct evidence that creationism is
false.
Richard is right, though, about one thing. The theory of
evolution, like any scientific theory, is subject to change.
Jay Gould's hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium is part of
that change. Whether or not science incorporates Gould's
hypothesis into mainstream evolutionary science, however,
depends on how consistent it is with the scientific
evidence. That's the real difference between the theory of
evolution and creationism. Scientific theories, such as the
theory of evolution, the theory of gravitation, and quantum
theory, must change in order to remain consistent with
scientific observations. Creationism, on the other hand, is
not a scientific theory. It survives, not by adapting to
new discoveries, but by ignoring or denying them".
Bob Fedun
duwa...@master.cna.tek.com writes:
>
<snip>
>really starting to worry about my physical safety. After
>all, ever since Moses and Abraham, the religiously devout
>have felt their ultimate test of faith is to kill someone
>for god.
>
Oh really? And you've got references for this claim?
<horror story deleted>
>I've asked a friend to submit the
>editorial under her name, which she did, but the second
>editorial has not been printed yet.
Let's not be too hard on the lady who was lying if you're getting
a friend to submit your writing under her name.
Look, I thought your letters were well written and I'm ashamed
of anyone who claims to be a Christian who behaves the way
the lady in your story did. However, don't generalize and assume
that we are all that insecure in our beliefs.
I've lost my temper many times, and have consistently regretted it
afterwards, but never has it made me feel closer to God.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Duwayne Anderson
Friday, 18 Feb. 1994, Bob Fedun wrote, in response to an
article by Duwayne Anderson:
>really starting to worry about my physical safety. After
all, ever since Moses and >Abraham, the religiously devout
have felt their ultimate test of faith is to kill someone
>for god.
>> Oh really? And you've got references for this claim?
Abraham's faith was tested (supposedly) by god when he was
told to kill his only son Isaac. Abraham was willing, and
according to the Old Testament it wasn't until he was about
to commit the act that an angel (so the story goes) stopped
him. Most Christians I know consider this to be a test of
Abraham's faith. What's your opinion, Bob? Personally, I
think Abraham failed the test. Do you think he should have
been willing to kill for god? If you thought god wanted
_you_ to kill for him, would you do it?
I've read the Old Testament several times, cover to cover.
It's rare that I meet a Christian who has read it as often
as I have. Many have not read it at all, and are unaware of
the tradition of brutality and cruelty in the book they
think was written by god. Moses and the Israelites
committed crimes against humanity that Hitler would have
been proud of. Numbers 31 has a particularly gruesome
account of Moses and his fellow thugs killing unarmed women
and children prisoners of war "Now, therefore, kill every
male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath
known man by lying with him. But all the women children
that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves".
Tell me, Bob, if you were alive then would you have joined
Moses in the killing fields? Do you know any Christians
that would have been willing to disobey Moses' command to
murder the children?
>>I've asked a friend to submit the editorial under her
name, which she did, but the >>second editorial has not been
printed yet.
>Let's not be too hard on the lady who was lying if you're
getting a friend to submit your >writing under her name.
Tell me, Bob, is Bill Clinton a liar because he uses speech
writers? Shouldn't he, when he finishes a speech, tell
everyone that he didn't exactly write it? How about actors
that don't use their real names? Are they lying? How about
people with unlisted phone numbers? How about ghost
writers?
Tell me, Bob, how in Hell's Bells is having a friend submit
my editorial in anyway morally similar to someone who
deliberately lies and uses misquotes in order to make her
point?
James G. Acker
: In article <2jp4p9$8...@master.cna.tek.com> Duwayne Anderson,
: duwa...@master.cna.tek.com writes:
: >
: <snip>
: >really starting to worry about my physical safety. After
: >all, ever since Moses and Abraham, the religiously devout
: >have felt their ultimate test of faith is to kill someone
: >for god.
: >
:
: Oh really? And you've got references for this claim?
I'll ask the scholars to find the exact chapter and verse,
but in at least one instance, the Lord deemed it an abrogation of
His commands when some "enemies" that He had ordered killed were
left alive.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Matthew P Wiener
> I'll ask the scholars to find the exact chapter and verse,
>but in at least one instance, the Lord deemed it an abrogation of
>His commands when some "enemies" that He had ordered killed were
>left alive.
What an interesting coincidence. Last Shabbos was "parshas zakhor"
(the remember portion), and the special reading from the prophets was
exactly this: 1Sam 15. Saul was to wage war against the Amalekites,
and kill them all. He left their king Agag alive. For this, Saul
was rejected as king by the prophet Samuel, speaking for God.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Bob Fedun
duwa...@master.cna.tek.com writes:
>
<snip>
>him. Most Christians I know consider this to be a test of
>Abraham's faith. What's your opinion, Bob? Personally, I
>think Abraham failed the test. Do you think he should have
>been willing to kill for god? If you thought god wanted
>_you_ to kill for him, would you do it?
Since you couldn't guess my feelings on the matter
from my first response, let me spell it out for you:
No I would not kill for God. Now tell me how many
t.o readers care?
>
>I've read the Old Testament several times, cover to cover.
That's swell.
>It's rare that I meet a Christian who has read it as often
>as I have.
Can I have "Superiority Complexes" for 100 please Alex?
<snip>
>
>Tell me, Bob, if you were alive then would you have joined
>Moses in the killing fields? Do you know any Christians
>that would have been willing to disobey Moses' command to
>murder the children?
Ummm, that would be 'no' and 'yes.'
By the way, why are you using a literal interpretation of
a much-edited piece of writing as your primary piece of
evidence? Haven't the t.o regulars made it clear that only
fools use literal interpretations of the Bible?
<snip>
That leads to the rapid-fire round. Fingers on your buzzers!
>Tell me, Bob, is Bill Clinton a liar because he uses speech
>writers?
no - but that doesn't mean he's not a liar ;)
>Shouldn't he, when he finishes a speech, tell
>everyone that he didn't exactly write it?
no - network time's waaaay too expensive.
>How about actors
>that don't use their real names?
What was the question Alex?
>Are they lying?
Ah - gotcha. No, just avoiding confusion when the Baldwin
boys make a new flick.
>How about
>people with unlisted phone numbers?
Yes! The bastards should be harrassed, but of course I don't
know their numbers.
Scumbuckets.
>How about ghost
>writers?
Which part of the Bible are you referring to now?
Oh - I get it. See the answer for actors.
>
>Tell me, Bob, how in Hell's Bells is having a friend submit
>my editorial in anyway morally similar to someone who
>deliberately lies and uses misquotes in order to make her
>point?
Um, let's see.
1) It's a lie. Your friend did not write it. When I see a letter to
the editor in a newspaper, and I read the name at the bottom
of the page, I assume that name represents the person who
wrote the letter.
It is in no way similar to someone using misquotes to prove a
point. In your original article I thought you were willing to
give her the benefit of the doubt on that, but I may be wrong.
The point is, you're trying to convince me you're lying for all
the right reasons. Don't lose any sleep over it. You've probably
just evolved a really good self-defense system.
p.s. Why not ask the editor to withold your name? It's been done.
Glenn Durden
>: >all, ever since Moses and Abraham, the religiously devout
>: >have felt their ultimate test of faith is to kill someone
>: >for god.
>:
>: Oh really? And you've got references for this claim?
Well, Exodus is absolutely full of references to God killing and making war
with people who were not the 'children of israel'.
A quick glance at the book gives:
Ex15:3 The Lord is a man of war
Ex14:31 (after God had killed a lot of Egyptians) Thus Israel saw the great
work which the Lord had done in Egypt.
Ex22:18 You shall not permit a sorceress to live. ( I guess a lot of
people can define 'sorceress' to include all sorts of heathens.)
Ex22:20 He who sacrifices to any God, except to the Lord only, he shall be
utterly destroyed.
Ex31:14 (about the Sabbath) Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death.
...and thats just 5 minutes of looking. I'm sure I've read many more
places where God commands his followers to kill. In fact, the first
few books of the OT have him looking like a complete warmongerer.
"I will send my fear before you. I will cause confusion among all the
people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to
you.
And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the
Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you... and you shall drive them
out... and you inherite the land... you shall make no covenant with them...
they shall not dwell in your land..."
Given mankinds warlike nature, I can see where he got it from.
"So God created man in his own image."