Evolution continued

[My apologies for a delay in posting; I've been traveling a bit. However, things are a bit more stable and regular posting should resume...]

A few days ago, the editors of the Oklahoman surprised me. You see, back at the beginning of the month, the paper ran a rather random letter discussing the scientific validity of evolution. At the time, I thought this was odd, even if refreshing to see. Predictably, though, the paper came back with several anti-evolution rants filled with the most typical (and uneducated) critiques of modern evolutionary theory.

With those letters published, I figured that this was it for the "debate"-- the editors had successfully riled up their theocratic base, and it was time to move on. However, I discovered that I was wrong when the paper ran a few more letters shortly thereafter supporting evolution. I was shocked! After all, the Oklahoman never allows a discussion to end with the progressive view getting the final word. Never! I was worried that perhaps my whole understanding of the editors was wrong. Maybe they did embrace an opinion policy that was grounded in reality!

Bahahaha! Of course they don't! Because now, we get what is almost certainly the final salvo in the Oklahoman's December episode of How Evolution Is Wrong. In this letter (titled-- with brilliant propagandistic flair-- "Where is the evidence?"), Dean Cave from Antlers (!) complains that "[j]ust once, [he]'d like for evolutionists to cite specific evidence in support of their theory, instead of statements such as 'There is a lot of evidence to support evolution.'"

He writes this as though no scientist ever has put forward any sort of popular writing that spells out evidence for evolution. It is truly embarrassing for Mr. Cave that he composed this letter for publication, and simply appalling that the Oklahoman would run such a letter.

As I wrote earlier, the talkorigins.org website has loads of discussion about the proof of evolution-- all available for free on their website. If one doesn't trust that, one could read some very excellent books on the topic-- I always liked Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, though this may be too theoretical and less grounded in the sort of real-world examples that someone like Mr. Cave is looking for. So perhaps he could look at Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne.

Either way, contrary to the opinion expressed by Mr. Cave, there is lots of material out there to read-- if only he weren't too lazy (or, really, uninterested) to find it. Worse, though, is the Oklahoman's strategy of running such letters. The editors-- as driven as they are by their theocratic/plutocratic agenda-- must know that an entire field of science hasn't existed for over a hundred years in the academy without some actual evidence. Yet, by running true rubbish like Mr. Cave's letter, they are tacitly agreeing with his sentiment. It's embarrassing.