Continuing the mindless diatribes by creationists attempting to argue against evolution using empty gibberish founded upon a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, I stumbled on two letters to the editor that were printed despite their horrifically inaccurate representations of science and general logic that besmirches intelligent thought.  Because both will undoubtedly scroll off that page when the next set of letters is published, I am reprinting them here for your convenience, after which I shall respond.

Evolution is a big lie

To the Editor:

It’s interesting to watch people with supposedly “advanced degrees” make statements argumentum ad baculum (argument by stick -my way or the highway) about evolution and to adamantly suggest that it is a “science”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution, in order to be true must be like Relativity and “frames of reference for uniformly moving objects”. In other words, it must apply to everything in our known universe and it must apply to all areas of science.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see where the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of physics “evolved”. Constantly we are bombarded by intolerant biologists who tells us how the world works with so much hand waving but no hard core science which is seen at the physics level. To suggest that the laws of physics “evolved” using Darwin’s model is a wasted discussion.

Furthermore, it is highly evident that in this “evolution” mindset, no one has undertaken any serious studies in probability. It’s extremely common and convenient for people to talk about how things somehow worked out but at the molecular and physics level, applying a bit of combination/permutation math, one can easily see questions that have never been asked. Anyone who has dabbled with organic chemistry (via flash cards for an exam) will quickly see that adding or moving one atom can make a huge difference. Just saying that both the particular atomic combination and the laws of physics governing the binding forces (electron level) are a product of evolution explains nothing and is again nothing but hand waving. It’s like education speaker Alfie Kohn repeatedly saying at GMU recently “research shows” and then providing no verbal data or slides to prove the point.

Evolution is a false paradigm and the rabid defenders would do the world of science much good by “ferme la grande bouche” and letting others dissent. They would also do themselves a great favor by reading Eisenstein’s book on the printing press where she repeatedly points out how corrections to early publications were solicited, not suppressed as we are seeing here.

You cannot have randomness. If you do, you can never science (know) a subject because there is no pattern and no law governing that phenomenon since it is random. If these people would stand back and consider all of the elements, the plants, the animals, think about these items at the atomic level and then ask, “how in the world did this all work out?” with a mind towards probability, they will soon realize, as the gays should, that evolution is a big lie.

John Miller
Sterling

 

Flavor design

To the Editor:

Coke and Pepsi spend millions annually to concoct new soft drink flavors. Yet despite their best efforts, the simple extract of the kola nut remains by far the most popular.

Cola’s status as the most popular soda flavoring could not have been driven by natural selection, since soda water was invented only three centuries ago. Three centuries is simply too short a period for either the kola tree or humans to adapt to such a development. Thus the kola tree (or man, for that matter) could well have been the product of intelligent design.

Chocolate for candy and vanilla for ice cream are also simple flavorings whose popularity stand the test of time. And they too were applied to foodstuffs too recently for evolution to propel their tastiness.

Does this disprove Darwin? Hardly, but it does call into question the notion that all life is the result of “survival of the fittest”.

Nat Kidder
Ashburn

Sadly, both are excessively verbose when they can be dismissed so easily.

Science does not work in a way that means all branches must interact with all other branches.  On the contrary, while all processes must adhere to the physical laws since they govern all matter and its interactions, those same laws are not subject to the biological process of evolution.  To attempt evisceration of evolution because the law of gravity did not evolve is as silly as attempting to disregard gravity because it does not procreate, consume, respire, or adhere to any other biological process.  It’s more than silly: it’s blatant ignorance, if not sheer stupidity.

You see, there is no requirement one aspect of a branch of science must apply uniformly to all other aspects of all other branches.  That is utter and complete nonsense; meaningless drivel proffered by the inept in the hopes of obfuscating their own lack of understanding and misplaced belief in a theistic answer to the natural order.  While some aspects of science must apply to all others (e.g., everything must adhere to the physical sciences since they govern all physical matter), not all science governs all other science.  For example, Einstein’s General Relativity does not govern the force of gravity on very small scales.  Since it does not apply to quantum phenomenon, it must be false.  Another example is that only heat energy must follow the laws of thermodynamics, but gasses and liquids do not.  Does that make it a false scientific premise?  Of course not.

Modern evolutionary synthesis describes a biological process that governs life.  It is no way an attempt to describe how general relativity works, how gravity came to be, how waves move and act, or how molecular chemistry uses atoms in various combinations to form materials that are not pure elements.  There is absolutely no requirement that it define anything other than what it meant to define: the processes that govern life.  Unless we expand his premise to include all scientific matters, including the other 99.9% with which he undoubtedly agrees, it is meaningless and counterproductive, not to mention indicative of blatant dishonesty or obliviousness.  For someone who likes to speak so highly above his own learning, doing so convinces no one of anything except his own lack of understanding on the subjects about which he speaks.

“You can never have randomness.”  Excuse me?  Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a proven aspect of quantum mechanics which governs all things everywhere, would argue differently.  Randomness is a given in the cosmos, an integral part of chaos theory and quantum mechanics and geology and biology and chemistry and physics and cosmology and — well, everything.

And realize “as the gays should” that evolution is a lie?  Dare I ask where that came from other than bigotry, hatred and intolerance?  Overall, his entire diatribe is representative of anti-science balderdash.  It shows a tremendous lack of comprehension about the scientific principles he attempts to distort for his own purposes.

As for the idea of flavor design, I’ll give you a moment to laugh.  Go ahead.  I’ll wait.

Now that you have that out of your systems, let me address this one.  What hysterical nonsense!  This is an attempt to explain away evolution using concepts of flavor that occur naturally and have certainly existed far longer than civilization.  There is no need for the vanilla, cocoa or kola plants to have adapted in the last three centuries.  Quite the contrary is true: humans found the flavors as they existed naturally, realized they generated tastes more than compatible with the majority of human palates, and capitalized on the plant extracts.

To continue her analogy in defense of intelligent design, we must also assume water evolved to fulfill our needs, dirt evolved to grow our crops, rain evolved to replenish our wells, bread evolved to hold our sandwich fixings, and so on.  It’s laughable at best.  None of these things are true, nor is the idea that these various plants evolved their flavors specifically because it would attract humans.

Again, her arguments are moot because only true gibberish could provide less accurate information.  What of cows, vegetables, chickens, and other foods we eat?  Did they evolve to fall prey to us, or did we discover them in their natural state and realize they had a tasty appeal for most people?

To both writers, I would recommend climbing back under the scientific rock that has obviously kept them from any reasonable understanding of what they chose to discuss.  The letters demonstrate only ignorance, not knowledge, and they do an injustice to the readership by confusing fact with fiction, science with malarkey, and reason with insanity.