Re: Local Creationist Letter to the Editor

"Doug_M" <dlm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:URXwf.11421$Pq4.170888@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The following appeared in my local daily newspaper (the Timmins
DailyPress,
>
>
http://www.timminspress.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=140227&catname=Letters&classif=Letters )
> on Monday in reference to responses to a columnist's article (the Loose
> Cannon by Micheal Barnes) about the Dover trial.
>
> " Reader disputes writer's stance on science
>
> Claude F. Gervais
>
> Monday, January 09, 2006 - 07:00
>
> Letters - This is in response to the letter written by David McKenna
> concerning Rev. (Scott) Woolhead's understanding of science.
>
> Sir, this may come as a complete shock to you but the so-called theory of
> evolution now faces a total collapse on all fronts.
>
> Because of limited space, I will only touch on three of your opinions.
>
> First, on the subject of fossil records, Darwin himself was extremely
> concerned about the lack of evidence to support his theory and he noted:
> "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
chain;
> and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
> urged against my theory."
>
> Yet, 118 years later, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould writes: "The extreme
> rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade
> secret of paleontology."
>
> Then you say that evolution happened but that there are disputes about the
> mechanism of change.
>
> Sir, there is no such thing as a mechanism for evolution!
>
> Darwin's "Gradaualism," Richard Goldscmidt's "Hopeful Monster" and Gould
and
> Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium theories have all failed miserably.
>
> Even Francis Crick, who received the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the
> DNA molecule, wrote in his book, Life Itself that life on this planet came
> from outer space on rockets!
>
> It is obvious that all these theories stand outside of the realm of
> empirical science.
>
> Finally, you describe "Intelligent Design" as nothing more than scriptural
> literalism dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.
>
> Evidently, you are not well versed on this subject.
>
> You obviously never read Johnson, Behe, Dembski or Wells; otherwise you
> would not make such biased statements.
>
> Nevertheless, in answer to your assertion, I'll just let evolutionists
speak
> on the matter:
>
> 1. Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker
says:
> "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
> having been designed for a purpose."
>
> 2. Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis wrote: "The
> complexity of the simplest type cell is so great that it is impossible to
> accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by
some
> kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be
> indistinguishable from a miracle."
>
> Mr. McKenna, before challenging whether Rev. Woolhead fears or
> misunderstands science, I suggest you update your information.
>
> Otherwise, you are better off to do what Michael Byrnes, The Loose Cannon
> did: just change the subject. "
>
> I intend to respond to it, and the Quote Mine Project is proving useful
but
> I find no reference to the Dawkins quote (made up, perhaps?) Any help on
> this, as well as suggestions for an effective response, would be
> appreciated.
>
> DougM (formerly posting as Starship)
>

I don't want to get into a long discussion of people's names, but doesn't it
appear providential that a (presumed) creationist is named Rev Woolhead?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Local Creationist Letter to the Editor
    ... Letters - This is in response to the letter written by David McKenna ... concerning Rev. Woolhead's understanding of science. ... Then you say that evolution happened but that there are disputes about the ... Otherwise, you are better off to do what Michael Byrnes, The Loose Cannon ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The creationist response...
    ... I have never seen the creationist response to this. ... > The words "we don't know" saturate the books on evolution that I've ... Science doesn't know everything, obviously. ... reinforce that a number of times per day, the student could very well ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Need some help writing a response to this nonsense...
    ... > I will be submitting my response later after work and I'm hopeful Bobby ... The focal question at hand is what will be taught in science class, ... evolution or ID, the new fangled creationism. ... They are entitled to their opinion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The creationist response...
    ... I have never seen the creationist response to this. ... >The words "we don't know" saturate the books on evolution that I've ... it makes sense to show students that there are ... information in all the disciplines of science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)