Round two

As I've noted before, every once in awhile, the Oklahoman likes to rile up its theocratic base by delving into the evolution "debate" via its letters section. This usually begins with some idiot attacking evolution-- usually in an out-of-the-blue manner-- and is followed up by some reasoned replies from well-meaning people who unfortunately stand no chance against decades of willful brainwashing. This will go on for awhile, but ultimately, the final salvo in the debate goes to the creationist.

It's been awhile since then, so I guess the editors decided it was time for more. Thus, a few days ago, the Oklahoman ran a letter wherein an uneducated and uninformed writer tried to take science down a peg or two by asserting that the conflicting opinions of different fields of research showed that evolution "wasn't possible." And now, we get round two, where David Grow of Edmond rightly notes that the field of anthropology has nothing to do with human evolution and also questions (much more politely than I did) the notion that it's been "proven" that it would take over 26 billion years for humans to evolve.

Mr. Grow ends his letter with a parting shot:

There's still a lot to learn about the universe and evolution. But as scientific discovery accumulates, the anti-science claims of creationists become increasingly irrelevant.

Mr. Grow is right, of course, and it's sad that he felt compelled to write his state's major newspaper to express such sentiments. After all, most major newspapers run letters that discuss major issues of the day that are grounded in reality. But the Oklahoman is no ordinary newspaper and letters pushing the editor's far right theocratic agenda are par for the course. No doubt in the next few days we will see replies to Mr. Grow's attacks on creationism as the paper continues its rile-up-the-base movement.