Mailbag: Evolution vs. Creationism

From: "Stephen"
Subject: Life ... How did it get here ... Through Evolution or Creation

Your review of the book "Life, How did It Get Here ... Through Evolution or Creation," was geared toward only one aspect and it appeared as though you had not gone beyond one chapter of the book.

If Stephen had indeed read the article, he'd have noticed that I dealt with material from throughout the book. It should be obvious to anyone that I had gone far beyond the first chapter - but that isn't really Stephen's complaint, I think. It is not a "fact" that I did not read the book, although it seems that Stephen may wish it to have been the case. It is easier for him to dismiss my article if you can believe that I didn't bother to read the book.

Stephen's real problem, I think, is that while I read the book, I didn't agree with its conclusions, much less its less-than-honest arguments. Stephen should have dealt with my article on that level, but that would have meant offering some sort of substantive critique of actual points which I raised if he were going to disagree with it. Readers should note that nothing of the sort was actually presented.

As a devout atheist, in my younger years, I swallowed the "evolution is a fact" story hook, line and sinker. When I started to investigate I discovered the cover-up on the part of the atheists' established religion. As an atheist you have to have faith in your "religion" ... your faith demands it!

Ah, so much nonsense compressed into so little space. If Stephen simply "swallowed" the idea that evolution is a fact, then he was never really much of a freethinker and never really understood science. That should be a lesson to people who are responsible for children's education - if they aren't careful about how they teach things, those kids may end up as confused as Stephen has become.

Atheists' established religion? I can't imagine what that might be - atheists on the whole have no religion and those atheists who do have a religion, like Buddhism, don't have an established religion that's for sure. Atheists also aren't involved in any "cover-up" about evolution. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to organize every biologist in the world to conspire to fake evidence supporting evolution and destroy evidence for something else? Stephen has been horribly deceived if he can believe even for a moment that such a conspiracy could even be mounted, much less become so successful. If cluelessness were painful, Stephen would be addicted to painkillers by this point - he believes that such a conspiracy can exist, but he can't accept the simple fact of descent with modification.

The fact is that you did not read the book and dishonestly dedicated your critique to quotes from your own believers. You "nit picked" a point to death ... why? What purpose did it serve? The quotes you took were from your own people who marvel at what "evolution" has "created". You see and hear it all the time on public TV and beautifully produced nature programs. They all say that the chances were a million gadzillions to one "yet that is what happened"! The length they go to deny a Creator is rediculous ... and that is what you chose to "nit pick" ... Why and for what purpose?

I nit-picked nothing in my review of that Jehovah's Witness book on evolution and creationism. If Stephen is referring to the misquotations that I cited and refuted, then I should point out that misquoting people is very dishonest and that revealing such deceit is not "nit picking." Stephen would have been much better off condemning those who misquoted rather than defending them - they only make creationism look worse than it need to.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...