From The News-Herald, of course, comes the most ignorant thing I've ever read in my life. It's a letter to the editor published yesterday:

Evolution and Creationism have existed for years and years. To this date, I have seen no factual evidence that evolution is in fact a fact. After all, it is the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin -- not the Fact of Evolution.

There is still the Missing Link. There is no one person more widely known throughout the world than Jesus Christ. More people know of Him than anyone else in history.

I totally believe that we were created. The Big Bang Theory (evolution) just doesn't cut it. An accident? Come on. It has been said that theory is no more reliable than a tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a jet airplane. Think about it.

My question to all those that believe in the Theory of Evolution is: Why are you so afraid of Creationism? If you are so sure that evolution is the reason we are all here, what could it hurt to teach Creationism, or are you not so sure?

We have the Bible and many, many other books of history and religion. You have Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Is it unjust to teach both and let each decide for themselves? It has been said that even Darwin turned to God in the end.

Absurd? I think not. I think the teaching of Creationism is just as important (and more so) as evolution. After all, we are talking about eternal salvation.

Eternity is a long, long time. I am a Christian and very confident in my beliefs, an I am willing to give each a chance and let the students decide what they believe. Are you?

Marlene Robinson
Burton

Oh boy. I will put the word "fisk," which I learned from Doug Ross, to good use.

First, may I remind readers that evolution and natural selection are not synonymous. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is the method by which biology works. Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged the reality of evolution. In a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, JP2 reminded everyone that "Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation." He also provided a Catholic definition of a theory:

A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

He goes on to say that theories of evolution which eliminate God from the equation are not sanctioned by the Church, since "[i]t is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body." He again invokes Pius XII, who "stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter the spiritual soul is immediately created by God." Thus, evolution is consistent with Scripture only if we can say that God creates a soul for a human being. Evolution doesn't address whether or not humans have souls, and as long as it doesn't do so, evolution and Scripture can be reconciled.

So let's talk about this letter to the editor. First, "Theory of Evolution" as used in the letter is capitalized. This should not be so. The theory behind evolution is not so grand and so infalliable as to be capitalized. It is merely a theory, like any other theory. In fact, evolution is as much a theory as gravity is, and I find it appropriate to analogize them. We know that evolution exists. Contrary to what Marlene Richardson says, we have observed evolution. Now all that remains is to explain how it works, and this is where competing theories -- natural selection ("the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin"), genetic drift, and non-Darwinian mutations -- try to explain how the process works. Likewise with gravity. We know that it works. We can observe it. But we don't understand how it works.

Charles Darwin did not invent the "Theory of Evolution." His theory, natural selection, was an attempt to explain the many different species of finches on the Galapagos islands. Darwin's theory of natural selection suggests that variations between different individuals of the same species exist already, and these variations contribute to an organism's survival. These variations are then passed on to an organism's offspring if the variations allow the organism to live long enough to pass those traits on. Over time, these variations create specialized groups of organisms that become distinct species. The environment determines the survival value of variations.

I take issue with the ethnocentric assumption that "[t]here is no one person more widely known throughout the world than Jesus Christ. More people know of Him than anyone else in history." The statement is ignorant and offensive on its face.

The Big Bang is not evolution. The Big Bang is a theory explaining the origin of the universe, not the origin of life on Earth. They may be analagous in the abstract sense that they both deal with order from chaos, but they are not equatable. Planets do not "evolve." Stars do not "evolve." They congeal from clouds of gas and dust.

As for this "tornado going through a junkyard and putting together a jet airplane," it's a clever metaphor that appeals to public ignorance of how natural selection works. It is not a random process. Mutations are random, but adaptability to the environment is not.

And moving on to the issue of being "afraid of Creationism," I don't think scientists are "afraid" of Creationism as such. They know that their theory stands on its own evidence. What they are afraid of is Creationists attempting to appeal to children and parents with the promise of better arguments and a less offensive explanation for how we got here. Which is better for your self-esteem: you were consciously created with a purpose, or you were a series of random mutations? As they say, sometimes the truth hurts. The existentialists have been dealing with this problem for years: man has no creator and no purpose, and the human condition is a search for purpose. But we'll leave that aside.

Creationism is very good at exploiting ignorance of evolution and common rhetorical tricks. Intelligent design is creationism wearing a different hat. It is not a theory in the sense that any of its assertions are testable, and it does not forward a testable hypothesis of its own. It merely says that evolution is wrong.

"We have the Bible and many, many other books of history and relgion," says Marlene Richardson. Actually, you don't. As a Christian, you have the Bible. As a Catholic, you have lots of Church doctrine along with the Bible. Again, the assumption that Christianity is correct is ethnocentric. The Christian creation myth is different from other creation myths from different parts of the world. Marlene Richardson's assumption is also that creationism is as valid a scientific theory as evolution. But remember what the Pope said: "A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified, it is constantly tested against the facts [...]" Creationism cannot be verified, nor can it be refuted. The only empirical data that support creationism come from the Bible, a single source. Creationism cannot be replicated by someone else under the same conditions. It is not a scientific theory and as such should not be taught in a science classroom. Bring me an actual, scientific theory counter to evolution and I'll teach it all day long. But equating creationism and intelligent design is disingenuous and preys upon a misunderstanding of evolution.

Sorry, Marlene Richardson, but if you make statements like these, you're going to be injured. You should have spent the time you wasted writing that letter on reading a book about how "the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin" (available in paperback this summer!) actually works.