Here’s a curious letter to the editor of the local paper in Little Falls, Minnesota. I know where that is! If you draw a straight line from Morris to Duluth, it lies about halfway along that line. I haven’t been there. I don’t think many have. If I wanted to go to Duluth, I’d take I94 east, get on 35 in Minneapolis, and not go anywhere near it. It’s a small town backwater, in other words, which can be quite nice if you like the quiet life, but it’s also the kind of place where ignorance can fester.
Like in the mind of this guy, Michael Dalquist Randall.
Evolution is going the way of the dinosaur due to modern scientific evidence.
How would you know? Seriously, go to any university where science is taught, and you’ll find the biology department is full of professors who accept evolution, teach evolution, and research evolution. That hasn’t been changing. The actual modern scientific evidence is all supporting evolution — all the fossils, the genes, the geology, the biochemistry, the comparative anatomy, etc., etc., etc. Check out the biology curriculum at these universities and you’ll find it’s typically built all around evolution. It’s the unifying principle of the science!
I notice that Mr Randall claims the “modern scientific evidence” supports his assertion, but he doesn’t provide any. I can predict what he’d say if he did, though: a lot of nonsense about complexity (not an obstacle to evolution), or nit-picking about details, which he doesn’t understand, that he’ll claim invalidate some scrap of evolutionary theory.
More and more scientists in every field are becoming Creationists as the outdated “evidence” of evolution is overshadowed by modern discoveries that reveal The Theory (yes, theory, not law) of Evolution to be what it truly is: a desperate (and not very tenable) attempt to prove that there is no God and that there is no need for a God.
The idea that more and more scientists are becoming creationists is nonsense. You can find a scattering of individuals who claim to have abandoned evolution after studying science, but most of them are lying: they went into it with a predisposition. Others may be sincere, but they are not numerous, and aren’t going to advance science at all — they’ve become religious apologists, not scientists.
What Mr Randall is demonstrating is confirmation bias, in which anecdotes about miscellaneous individuals are treated as hard data only because they fit his preconceptions.
Again, what is the
outdated “evidence” of evolution, and the
modern discoveries that overshadow them? He doesn’t say.
Yes, we know it’s a theory. We also know that there isn’t a ranking of credibility where “law” is better than “theory”. It just doesn’t work that way. Laws are strong definitions of simple ideal relationships; theories are explanatory frameworks that can integrate information about significant bodies of knowledge. A theory can encompass many laws, does that mean theory outranks law? That’s probably not a productive way to use the concepts.
I personally think that evolution makes gods superfluous, but that’s not why evolution was proposed. Darwin agonized over the effect his discovery would have on religious belief, it’s one of the reasons he sat on it for 20 years. Rather, evolution was an explanation of observed natural phenomena. You might as well complain that “2+2=4” is an attempt to usurp the divinity of numbers, and was clearly formulated to undermine godly revelation.
Evolutionism was a valid theory in Darwin’s time, but if he had the evidence available to him that we have today, Darwin himself would probably not believe in Darwinian evolution.
Once again, we get a vague reference to unevidenced
evidence that would have made even Darwin a creationist. Sorry, guy, I would suggest instead that the molecular evidence of common descent alone would have been ample confirmation of evolution. I suspect, though, that if you sprung the mathematical basis of evolutionary theory on him all at once, he might find it a little too overwhelming.
Mr Randall, go read a book other than your Bible or the propaganda from ICR or AIG (which he cites in the letter) and learn something real about evolutionary biology. It’s awesome stuff.