How does he manage to breathe? (Creationist)

[Surlethe]

So I open the paper this morning, and lo and behold -- this letter rushes out of the paper and strikes me betwixt the eyes:

Letter: Evolution not a fact
PASTOR JERRY N. THROWER - Bible Baptist Church Parker City

A recent letter claimed that "Evolution is a fact of science that can and has been backed up by many experiments in the lab and field."

"Facts" of science are arrived at through the scientific method. "Historical science," the area to which evolution falls, is severely limited because we cannot experiment on, test directly, repeat, or observe past events. Scientists are forced to make inferences based on assumptions. The further back into the past we study, the more the methods of operational science become invalid. Therefore, speculation and preexisting beliefs play a major role in the interpretation of data.

The great scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted as saying, "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."

Don't be deceived. Evolution is a belief system, not science, and has not and cannot be backed up in the lab or field. It is not in the realm of observable operational science to which the scientific method can be applied.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The guy's a cookie-cutter. Should be easy as cake to rebute him. Get on it!

[Surlethe]

The guy's a cookie-cutter. Should be easy as cake to rebute him. Get on it!

As a matter of fact, I am writing a letter as I type this. I'll post it once I'm done.

[Vicious]

So I open the paper this morning, and lo and behold -- this letter rushes out of the paper and strikes me betwixt the eyes:

<snip mind-numbing retardation>

IQ ... dropping ... can't think ... must ... argh!

I can't believe he used the "tornado through a junkyard" attack. He's not only a cookie-cutter fundie, but his cookies are way out of date.

Seriously, send in your own letter showing him just what a retarded idiot he is. Only, don't couche it in SDNet terms, or else your chances of getting it published are somewhere between none and ... none.

[Surlethe]

Only, don't couche it in SDNet terms, or else your chances of getting it published are somewhere between none and ... none.

"Dear Editor:

Pastor Thrower is a fucking moron.

Sincerely,

Surlethe."

Actually, here's the letter as I currently envision it:

Dear Editor:

Pastor Thrower ought to perform at least a modicum of research before he presumes to affect a position regarding a topic about which he clearly possesses no knowledge. In his letter of Sunday, September 25, Pastor Thrower demonstrates his inability to grasp basic scientific concepts, his refusal to understand an idea before attempting to rebut, and his willingness to repeat outdated, severely flawed arguments.

Scientists define evolution “as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."1 Thus, any genetic drift within a population characterize evolution. Furthermore, as such drift continues to occur, different populations of a species gradually acquire characteristics different from the mother population; eventually, as natural selection enhances the genetic differential, interbreeding becomes impossible. Scientists, contrary to asinine Creationist claims, have observed such speciation events under controlled conditions. For example, scientists observed a speciation event in a laboratory population the fruit fly Drosophilia paulistorum during the late 1960s. Furthermore, the fossil record supports evolutionary predictions: scientists have accumulated smooth chains of descent for multiple modern species, including whales, horses, birds, and humans, to name only a few. Every fossil discovered has been a transitional form, which fits nicely with evolutionary predictions.

Pastor Thrower also utilizes Fred Hoyle’s famous quote, and in doing so commits a grievous distortion of evolution in presuming to portray evolution as a random process. In fact, evolution works through the natural selection of different mutations, which, as selection, is the diametric opposite of a random process.

Finally, Pastor Thrower implicitly expects the reader to assume, once he has attacked evolution, creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Unfortunately, science does not work like politics: in order to recommend a valid theory, one must provide evidence supporting the proposed theory, not attack opposing theories; one must, furthermore, utilize the scientific method of observing -- and then and only then drawing conclusions -- rather than forming a hypothesis from a literary work and then searching for evidence. Science, moreover, embraces a naturalistic philosophy: no scientific descriptions may invoke unquantifiable entities. Seen in a scientific light, Pastor Throwers implied attempt to credit creationism through distorting and attacking evolution is, quite simply, laughable.

Sincerely,
Surlethe


1. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

[Vicious]

Only, don't couche it in SDNet terms, or else your chances of getting it published are somewhere between none and ... none.

"Dear Editor:

Pastor Thrower is a fucking moron.

Sincerely,

Surlethe."

Actually, here's the letter as I currently envision it:

Dear Editor:

Pastor Thrower ought to perform at least a modicum of research before he presumes to affect a position regarding a topic about which he clearly possesses no knowledge. In his letter of Sunday, September 25, Pastor Thrower demonstrates his inability to grasp basic scientific concepts, his refusal to understand an idea before attempting to rebut, and his willingness to repeat outdated, severely flawed arguments.

Scientists define evolution “as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."1 Thus, any genetic drift within a population characterize evolution. Furthermore, as such drift continues to occur, different populations of a species gradually acquire characteristics different from the mother population; eventually, as natural selection enhances the genetic differential, interbreeding becomes impossible. Scientists, contrary to asinine Creationist claims, have observed such speciation events under controlled conditions. For example, scientists observed a speciation event in a laboratory population the fruit fly Drosophilia paulistorum during the late 1960s. Furthermore, the fossil record supports evolutionary predictions: scientists have accumulated smooth chains of descent for multiple modern species, including whales, horses, birds, and humans, to name only a few. Every fossil discovered has been a transitional form, which fits nicely with evolutionary predictions.

Pastor Thrower also utilizes Fred Hoyle’s famous quote, and in doing so commits a grievous distortion of evolution in presuming to portray evolution as a random process. In fact, evolution works through the natural selection of different mutations, which, as selection, is the diametric opposite of a random process.

Finally, Pastor Thrower implicitly expects the reader to assume, once he has attacked evolution, creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution. Unfortunately, science does not work like politics: in order to recommend a valid theory, one must provide evidence supporting the proposed theory, not attack opposing theories; one must, furthermore, utilize the scientific method of observing -- and then and only then drawing conclusions -- rather than forming a hypothesis from a literary work and then searching for evidence. Science, moreover, embraces a naturalistic philosophy: no scientific descriptions may invoke unquantifiable entities. Seen in a scientific light, Pastor Throwers implied attempt to credit creationism through distorting and attacking evolution is, quite simply, laughable.

Sincerely,
Surlethe


1. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

While a great piece, I'd argue it is too caustic. You need to be even more polite than you are already being by not just calling him a shit-faced liar. (I know, I know, why should you bother kissing ass, but if you want to publicly refute this scumbag, you have to be polite about it.)

[Darth Servo]

As one having a Bachelors in Biology, I have NEVER heard anything about there being two different kinds of sciences. What is this "historical science" the tard is babbyling about? You might want to add a paragraph about that issue.

[Duckie]

As one having a Bachelors in Biology, I have NEVER heard anything about there being two different kinds of sciences. What is this "historical science" the tard is babbyling about? You might want to add a paragraph about that issue.

I believe he is referring to science that refers to events that took place in the past [Evolution [on a large scale], Formation of the Earth, Big Bang/Singularity Theory, Etc.] and thus can't be repeated in a lab. Idiotic choice of terms, but it does have some sort of meaning.

[Darth Servo]

I believe he is referring to science that refers to events that took place in the past [Evolution [on a large scale], Formation of the Earth, Big Bang/Singularity Theory, Etc.] and thus can't be repeated in a lab. Idiotic choice of terms, but it does have some sort of meaning.

Does the preacher tard not realize that EVERYTHING that has happened, happened in the past?

[Duckie]

Does the preacher tard not realize that EVERYTHING that has happened, happened in the past?

My mistake. Replace "Past" with the vague undefined term "Far Past" to fix that definition.

For the letter to the Editor, I would tone down the accusations of idiocy against Pastor Pinhead and instead just state he is wrong to increase your chances of getting published.

[Darth Servo]

My mistake. Replace "Past" with the vague undefined term "Far Past" to fix that definition.

For the letter to the Editor, I would tone down the accusations of idiocy against Pastor Pinhead and instead just state he is wrong to increase your chances of getting published.

Fair enough.

But the main point remains, there is no real difference between what Pastor Piss-for-brains calls "Historical science" and "observable operational science".

Its just like the way these cretinous creationists try and distinguish between "macro" and "micro" evolution.

[Crossroads Inc.]

The great scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted as saying, "The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard."

Woooow... I havn't heared that one in years.. Ancient Quote from a 'great' scientist... Make him walk the plank I say!

[Exonerate]

Your chances of having your letter published are better if it's kept short and succinct. Keep it concise... If you make it too complex, the average idiot is just going to glaze past it.

[Zero]

Your chances of having your letter published are better if it's kept short and succinct. Keep it concise... If you make it too complex, the average idiot is just going to glaze past it.

That's the trouble with attempting to explain evolution. Typical misinterpretations and lies can be condensed into quite short bits of text, whereas attempting to tell enough about evolution to make it sound credible, realistic, and honest, you need to go into more detailed explanations. If they won't post his longer rebuttal, then he probably couldn't make a rebuttal that would be sufficient for the average man to decide that his position was the accurate position.

[defanatic]

I heard that 747 and tornado quote before, in a christian private school. *gags*

I think your return letter is very good though. I certainly would be unable to equal its quality.

[Kitsune]

Problem is that you cannot grab the way he does..he is pandering while yours makes a person think.

I really think that alot of people do not want to think

[Surlethe]

I really think that alot of people do not want to think

Yep; #1 law of politics: "Make a person think they're thinking, and they love you; actually make them think, and they hate you."

I'll work on a revised version this evening and probably post it tomorrow. Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

[Kuroneko]

As for the caustic nature of the letter, the last paragraph is particularly troubling. While there is an overwhelming likelyhood that Pastor Thrower's beliefs are among those lines, he did not actually propose any alternatives in his letter. It would be much better if the last paragraph was reworded to not mention Pastor Thrower at all (perhaps instead as a "frequently made assumption')--the lack of viable alternative theories is a very good point deserving mention, but one should not put words in the pastor's mouth.