Letter to the editor

It's well known in town that if evolution is misrepresented in our local newspaper, The Jamestown Sun, I will be writing a letter to the editor. I am in there again, after a few years of silence.

The Reverend Tom Eckstein is someone I am quite familiar with. We have exchanged numerous emails regarding evolution or creation and have met several times. I get along with him well, although we see things completely differently. He had a guest commentary in the paper on Saturday. It is too long to reproduce here, but you can see it here. I wasn't even sure if I should write a response to this. Most of it is Biblical exegesis and epistemology and he makes few specific scientific claims. There is no way to make a case about epistemology in a short letter. But ultimately I couldn't resist, and I did send a letter. I reproduce it below:

Readers of Tom Eckstein’s commentary on evolution might get the mistaken impression that there is scientific support for his views. Eckstein suggests that the creation museum in Kentucky does not reject science. It does reject very well established science. They are free to do so, I only object to the implication that any support for this view can be found from within science. It is dishonest to suggest that the consensus for evolution is somehow different from the consensus regarding whether the earth moves or matter is composed of atoms, or to suggest a parallel between the massive positive evidence for evolution with the absence of scientific evidence one way or the other for the virgin birth.

There have been no articles disputing macroevolution in the scientific literature in over 50 years but such an article would be necessary to support the claim that there is a scientific controversy. Eckstein is confusing minor disagreements about details, which occur in all healthy sciences, with disagreements about evolution itself, and he confuses the status and evidence for microevolution versus macroevolution (macroevolution is more strongly supported by the evidence). Eckstein is free to reject the scientific consensus, but it is not acceptable to confuse the public about the state of the science or to suggest support for his view from within science.

A non literal reading of Genesis goes back at least to Augustine in the 5th century who argued that Genesis has a logical rather than temporal framework and a spiritual rather than physical meaning, which is no less literal. This did not lead to erosion of belief in the Bible in the millennia that followed. Augustine also warned about the damage to faith in interpreting scriptures in a way contrary to scientific knowledge:

“Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, ... Now, it is a … dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such a situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

There is plenty more I could have said, but there are a few points to keep in mind with letters to the editor. Most importantly they should be short and have only one or two points. It does no good to correct every mistake in a letter. Here, I just wanted to correct the impression that evolution is somehow more controversial than other sciences or that disagreements mean Answers in Genesis is correct. I also decided to give a brief reply to his Biblical exegesis, just so that people know there are other ways of seeing things.

But since I have a blog, I can add some of the other things I would like to say here. When I write a letter, I first write out every thought I have and then cut it way down, and make it sound more polite. So here are some things on the cutting room floor:

The creation museum, like the Flintstones, suggests that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. That is a testable hypothesis. If it were true, then we would expect to find dinosaur bones occasionally mixed with human bones, or dinosaur footprints found among human bones or villages or artifacts, or human arrowheads or charcoal found among dinosaurs. There are no such occurrences. Likewise the museum grossly mischaracterizes the geology of places such as the grand canyon.

By comparing the science for the virgin birth with evidence for evolution he implies they are similar questions with similar evidence. However, with the birth of Jesus there is an absence of scientific evidence one way or the other, while there is overwhelming positive evidence for evolution. It is true that scientists who believe in the virgin birth or any other miracle must believe that the laws of nature were suspended. They believe it when there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. A better example to creationism would be if someone today claimed to be the product of a virgin birth. If we had DNA evidence, hospital records, gynecological exams, and personal testimony all contradicting the claim, then it would be foolish to still support it. Likewise, it is foolish to support the claims in the creation museum. A scientist may choose to believe otherwise if the evidence were the other way.

I had a few other sentences here and there that I knew wouldn't be developed further so I left them alone, like macro evolution not just being an extrapolation of microevolution, or the various claims in the Bible that the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth, etc., which no one takes literally.

Ultimately I sent the letter because I think we need to fight every little misrepresentation. If we don't, they will find seed and be considered true by some readers. There is a perception that evolutionary science is somehow different from other sciences. I hope I can make a few people at least understand the extent of scientific consensus.