I am writing concerning Garrett Garriga’s opinion piece on creation science in the Sept. 9 issue of The Reflector. Garriga’s article was truly an opinion piece, for there is not nearly enough fact in it to call it anything else. I shall discuss his points in order.· The spelling of Yahweh is a supposition on scholars’ part; the vowels were not part of the Tetragrammaton, so we don’t really know how it should be spelled.
· If a textbook is written by a humanist, that’s not an automatic strike against it. (Also– proof of these authors’ humanism, please?)
· I once put some questions to the dynamic Dr. Hovind about his creationist stance; he replied, but dodged the questions. This is not the mark of a good debater. Hovind may think his reward shall go unclaimed, but that may point to a need to adjust his definition of evolution.
· I would like for Garriga to please explain how the “humanistic theory of evolution … is a religion”. Look up religion first, though.
· A major objection here: Garriga says, “(The Origin of Species)… is obviously a racist construct. It was written in a time in history to justify slavery.” I say: garbage. “Race,” as used by Darwin, means, effectively, “species”–not subdivisions of humanity! Later, there came the execrable “Social Darwinists” who tried to justify oppression and slavery via Darwin’s model of Nature, but, well, they were and are wrong.
· “Most professors here are humanists and put Christianity on as a front.” Support these claims. Groundless accusations have no place in the public view; extreme cases can lead to lawsuits over libel.
· Why don’t we have a creation science class? Well, creation science is something of an oxymoron; you need a more rigorous definition of a field before offering classes in it. In my humble opinion, the label “science” is used here to try to attach more credibility, difficult to defend though it may be, to a religious or philosophical belief.
· Contrary to Garriga’s claim, it is possible for MSU faculty to mention “the creation or the flood in the days of Noah” without being “punished or fired.” My wife, for instance, who is an MSU professor, confirms this. Garriga, is seriously in error. Check your facts; do your research; then consider promulgating your ideas.
· I’m glad that the existence of evolution is acknowledged here, but to then say that “macroevolution (speciation) … is a crock and a mockery of true science” is to ignore a great deal of true science.” Let me show you a few kilotons of ancient radioisotopes and petrified dinosaur bones.
· Garriga said, “The New World Order uses the evolution perception to devalue the Bible.” So? What has this to do with the subject here?
· If 70 percent of Christian students lose their faith when studying freshman biology, what does this say about their faith–not very strong, eh? Why not? It is possible to be an open-minded scientist (the only kind worthy of the name) and a devout Christian (or Jew, or Zoroastrian, or …).
· “Evolution theory was the foundation of socialism, humanism, communism and the New World Order.” You’ll need to present a lot of supporting evidence to get this claim taken seriously. Ready?
· “This nation is founded on a biblical foundation…” Read the works, and analyses, of Jefferson and the like.
· There is indeed a lot of evidence for a great inundation. Level-headed researchers believe that it was the refilling of the Black Sea about 10,000 years ago. This flooded a large part of the local people’s known world, but it certainly wasn’t planetwide or Everest-deep. The tale of Noah is a good story, but a poor history.