More evolution

While the Oklahoman has run plenty of letters appealing to the plutocratic arm of the right wing, it hasn't done much for the theocratic side. Thus, it's hardly surprising that we get a new letter stirring up the evolution/creationism "debate" today. Dean Cave of Antlers writes

David Grow (Your Views, July 22) wrote that 'Frans de Waal, in The Atheist and the Bonobo, tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors. The full title of the book is The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism among the Primates. Since Grow didn't get the title correct, I'm not sure how familiar he is with the book's contents. However, it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

I admit that I didn't pay much attention to Mr Grow's letter, which was itself a response to another letter by C. Dale German of Bethany that was itself a response to the Oklahoman's feature on atheists in Oklahoma.

Mr German's letter is pathetic, noting that:

But atheism doesn't explain intricate balances of nature, the cosmos, billions of cells in the human brain. Nor does it explain the genesis of morality, love or the concept of a nonexistent God.

This is all obvious and hardly noteworthy (and even non-sensical: what does it mean to explain the concept of a nonexistent anything?). Atheism doesn't "explain" anything, and it's not supposed to. It simply says that a person doesn't believe in a god or gods. There's nothing in there about the cosmos, biology, or anything else. That's what science is for.

Indeed, as Mr Grow notes,

claiming atheism doesn't explain certain things observed in the universe is a non sequitur. Atheism simply disregards religion's explanation that the origin of the universe and morality are derived from a deity. Atheists turn to empirical science to understand what we observe in the natural world.

To talk about the origins of morality, Mr. Grow refers to a book by Frans de Waal. He titles it The Atheist and the Bonobo, but it's really The Bonobo and the Atheist, as Mr Cave observes. Let's start here and say that how lazy are the editors at the Oklahoman to get this wrong? Seriously, the paper claims that it may edit letters for clarity, but they can't just fact check basic facts like this? Totally lazy.

Anyhow, Mr Cave makes the shitty remark that since Mr Grow got the book title wrong, then perhaps he isn't very familiar with the book. He continues,

it's an overstatement to say that it 'tracks the development of human morality back through our primate ancestors.' What it does is provide us with the author's opinions based on his observations of animal behavior. Not even all evolutionists agree with those opinions.

For crying out loud. Can someone be more pedantic?? I suppose we say that the Gospel of Mark doesn't tell us the story of Jesus, but that it tells what an author with the pseudonym of Mark thinks happened in the life of Jesus, then.

He continues-- and tell me if you've heard this before:

The subtitle of the book, 'In Search of Humanism among the Primates,' suggests that the author at least thought he found what he was looking for. This is no surprise, since evolutionists almost always find what they're looking for. The one thing they haven't found is any real evidence that their theory is true. Since 'The Beginning' was a one-time event that can't be duplicated in a science lab, both evolution and creationism rest on faith.

For real?!? Are we back to the evolution-is-faith argument? Ugh.

Science has never been able to demonstrate that one kind of animal evolved into a different kind, or that abiogenesis is scientifically possible. Nor can it explain the “apparent” design in nature — except by resorting to a series of fortunate accidents, the probability of which is impossible to calculate.

Actually, there is compelling evidence that animals evolved. He can disagree, but to do so, you're left to resorting to things like "satan did it" and the like. And then, what's this:

Saying that 'Nobody made it, it just happened' isn't a suitable explanation.

Except this is a straw man!! No one says this. Now, people do say "nobody made it, and we're not sure how it happened" all the time.  But that's the point. Someone doesn't understand something, then studies it, and, after some research and some experiments, figures it out.

No serious newspaper should run a letter like this one fro Mr Cave. He is clueless and regurgitating long-ago-refuted creationist talking points. But the Oklahoman isn't a serious newspaper. They have to feed the theocrats and so they run stupid letters like this. It's sad.