(This letter to the editor was published on October 18, 2006 in my university's newspaper.)
Re: Re: "Scientific evidence.."
Technology, Sept. 20, 2006
I find it completely hypocritical that the people who sent their letters to the editor stating their anti-creationist, anti-intelligent design views should criticize the article written by Babu Ranganathan. There is no excuse for their intellectual dishonesty and blatant disregard for fact.
Firstly, I would like to contrast a slight nuance in definitions that evolutionists love to leave out, and that is that there are two forms of the evolutionary theory, one is called micro-evolution which is the scientific form of evolution which observes the differences that arise within a same species, and then theres macro-evolution, which is now sloppily called simply "evolution", which is the non-scientific philosophical branch we are all debating about. Why non-scientific? Because it is not observable! When was the last time you or anyone, scientist or not, saw a species become another? "Well, that takes 'millions' of years to occur!" Well, how convenient. "There's fossils!" So you find two similar, though slightly differing fossils, and conclude one evolved from another? This is not science, it is not observation, and it is not logical. As a matter of fact, if you run through any honest non-biased source (for either side) it will show you that most of the basis for what we call the theory of (macro) evolution is based on personal deduction, hoaxes and fakes, with the first example that comes to mind being Haeckel's infamous drawings that were promptly rejected by scientific community a short while after they appeared (and which still for some reason appear in biology textbooks to this day). It is not even a logical thought process, considering the fact that Darwin's natural selection is a destructive and not constructive process.
Science, from the word itself, means "the study of knowledge", and as such, is limited by its own methods of such study. As recently as 210 years ago, science rejected the idea that a rock could fall from the heavens, and called this religious poppycock. Today we call these meteorites. And it was Greek scientists who, through observation, declared that the atom was the smallest indivisible building block of all we see, (hence the name). Today, thanks to Bohr, Rutherford and many others, we know there are much smaller particulates which make up atoms, that are themselves made up of even smaller particulates. And until recently, Neanderthal man was thought to be an ancestor of modern man, now we're just "cousins" (does this sound like "nephilim" to anyone?) So, science is ever self correcting, and arrogantly stating that something is so because science says so, runs the risk of saying it is impossible for rocks to fall from the sky. And as much of the Bible continues to be proved by science, such as the shocking reality that yes, even gold is destructible (through a chemical called Aqua Regia), disregarding its scientific value simply because it is also a religious text is irresponsible and, again, quite arrogant.
To conclude, I'm not asking the evolutionist community to accept creationism or even intelligent design, but rather to shed the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty they apply to coerce others into believing their unsubstantiated beliefs. If you want to reject intelligent design as philosophy and or religion, please apply the same ruler to measure your own unscientific beliefs as also being a valid opinion to hold, but nonetheless still unobservable, unscientific philosophy. And, in regards to macro evolutionary theory, to quote Michael Jordan: "it has no place in a science class".
- [my name]