Scientific stupidity

It's been awhile since the Oklahoman ran a letter pushing its anti-evolution theocratic agenda. But after reading today's letter from James Claflin of Edmond, one can only hope we go a long time before seeing another, for they don't get much dumber than this:

'Scientists rethink universe' (Associated Press, March 24) stated that scientists now calculate the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years. The 'big bang' is listed as a figurative 0-60 mph in thousandths of a second, bringing the universe from nothing to that of what we see in today's world. Many bright individuals are involved — astronomers, planetary physicists, etc. — but another group not mentioned is very much a part of the debate. What about the anthropologists who give no credit to creationism but relate everything to the process of 'evolution'?

Wait. Why on earth would anthropologists weigh in on the age of the universe? And, what debate are we even talking about? After all, the article in question didn't mention any debate! But Mr. Clafin isn't done with his stupidity:

It's been said and 'proven' (how, I don't know) that it would take 26.2 billion years for humans as we know them today to evolve into their current forms. So, the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years and the evolution of humans took 26.2 billion years. My math teachers taught me that 13.8 billion minus 26.2 billion results in a negative number. Something doesn't add up! Would the planetary astronomers pick up the telephone and talk to the anthropologists to resolve a conflict that my third-grade math teacher said wasn't possible?

Holy shit. Yeah. Mr. Clafin, something doesn't add up, but it's not from the scientists: it's from your being utterly stupid. Where on earth did he get this "26.2 billion years" number?!? And given that he freely admits that he has no idea how this number was arrived at, why is he even bringing it up?!?

But let's be clear: that number is a complete fabrication. No "anthropologist" would ever state this. Indeed, no serious scientist of any discipline would think it. It's worthless. Yet, a major state newspaper is running Mr. Clafin's query as though it has serious merit. It's an embarrassment to the state.

One can only hope that any of the many professors teaching in the state will write in to correct this utterly stupid notion.