Unsettled

Recently there have been letters sent to the editor concerning the supposed "creation-evolution" debate.

What unsettles me is that I might know who one of the letter writers is. He might be the English teacher at my former school.

What unsettles me is that if this is the case he might try and get Creationism taught in the science classes. I am confident that there would be no way that could happen because there are plenty of teachers there that understand science, but if it fails I do worry a bit about what my sister will learn and how that will affect her future.

But this brings me to another point.

Why is it that people seem to like arguing something that they don't understand?

In today's paper there are a few letters in support of creationism and about the same against.

Now those for creationism don't seem to understand what evolution is.

Don't tell me that it is "only a theory" or "a hypothesis", it is neither your definition of "theory" or a hypothesis. That means that you don't understand evolution, or even the basic fundamentals of science.

That one argument occurs everywhere that this stupid "debate" occurs. The scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as your definition of "theory". In a rather simple explanation a scientific theory is one that explains why something acts the way it does, and this is supported by continuous experimentation. It, like science, is also very fluid. If something comes along that causes a problem with the theory, changes can be made to accommodate them or the theory is thrown out altogether and a new one will be found that can explain everything.

Try and tell me that it is rigid and you don't know anything about science.

Don't tell me that evolution says that information cannot be lost. Of course it can, what would deleterious mutations be if not a loss of information?

The problem in the above paragraph is that in terms of gaining information you have a rather ambiguous term. If such a mutation would happen in a non-coding region which is of no importance at all wouldn't that mean that information would be increasing as there is less random nonsense? What about a deleterious mutation in a coding region? Wouldn't that result in a decrease in information because now you get more random nonsense and less information?

Once again I have fallen into the trap that I was trying not to get into. Here I have implied that "information" refers to the sections of DNA that actually "do" something.

But the better question is how does this mean that a god (or gods) did it?

It doesn't.

Finally I don't want to hear people talk about how scientists that support the idea that a deity (or deities) created the universe means that they are creationists. It doesn't work that way in real life. People don't believe the same things that you believe. And many of these scientists don't see that a deity had to have done things the way you say. If that is the case then I guess you should see that you have a big monument like a ziggurat or something that you can sit atop because by telling us what God (because I have never come across a creationist who wasn't a monotheist) must have done must mean that you are God because to truly know if God exists requires you to basically be God.

If that is the case then congratulations, you have just managed to destroy your religion.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't easier to just belittle these people until they go away.