Letter to the editor- Problem with religion view
To the editor- I was quite dismayed to see Mr. Pennington’s column of 8/10. Why was this column in the “religion” section of the paper? If it is truely “science”, then why was it not in the “science” section. If it is truely a matter of faith, why was that not so stated? The confusing of religion and science should in no way be interpreted as a reconciliation of science and nature.
“Creation Science” is, of course, not science, and should not be treated as such, but let’s deal with Mr. Pennington’s assertions directly.
He states that “it is only the last 200 years that the persuasiveness of this (creationist) argument has been called into question.” TRUE, but it was only 200 years prior that men were being imprisoned and executed as “heretics” for suggesting that the earth was flat and not the center of the universe around which the sun and stars revolved.
He states that “evolutionary theory and modern science have raised doubts about the need for a creator.” FALSE.
Evolutionary theory is science, not theology, and presupposes nothing about a creator. Evolutionary Science is the result of years of testing and retesting data against itself to reach verifiable conclusions. This also goes to the claim that Evolution is “just a theory.” The term “theory” in science means much more than just a “hypothesis” or an “educated guess.” Theories are tested and confirmed constantly, and as such, are in flux as new data is presented. No scientists question the broad theories of evolution. Details of the exact nature of it are always going to be brought into question and re-evaulated as necessary. This is what good science is. Gravity is “just a theory.” I may go outside tomorrow and drop a ball and it may go up. The theories about gravity would then have to be re-evaluated. Science is about testing data and reaching conclusions based on those results. Creationism presupposes the result and fits the data in order to reach the desired result. THAT is NOT science.
He states that “the fact that there still is no fossil evidence of transitional forms to be found.” FALSE. The fossil record for transitional forms is abundant, and anyone willing to take Mr. Pennington’s advice and “check it out” would be astonished. For example, the fossils Haptodis, Biarmosuchus, Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, and Morganucodon are all examples of transistional forms between early reptiles and early mammals. Biology, like any other science, is complex and daunting. It can’t be reasoned with a cute bumper sticker. This may explain why so many people are willing to believe such creationist arguments, but does not excuse it.
He states that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics. FALSE. Evolution is in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. He doesn’t state what the law is, or how it violates it, so for brevity I will only state that the earth is not a closed-system.
As much as I would like to go into more detail, space does not permit and I will conclude only by saying that it is sad that the faith of some is so shallow that scientific evidence and knowledge calls their faith into question. Faith does NOT equal truth, and to assert so only denegrates the value of each.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User