And I can’t let the day end without yet another letter to the editor in some fine news outlet somewhere in this great land:

Science priests can be wrong in creation debate

I support the former science teacher in her faith in science (“Creationism: Shouldn’t be taught in school,” Your Views). The problem is not with science but with the scientific community.

Every generation looks back to correct the errors of its predecessors. A scientist 100 years ago would have said the universe had no beginning, is infinite and unchanging. Now, the converse is true. [No, not really, these issues are still discussed.]

A scientist may believe there is no God, but if stated as fact, he is not behaving scientifically. He is creating a postulate that is not provable by scientific method.

The writer calls the teaching of creationism “scientifically false.” What experiment can be performed to disprove historical accounts? She addresses “evolution” of bacteria. Resistance is more about natural selection (the process of adaptation within a species) than evolution. The capacity to survive the antibiotic is already present in a small number. These fittest bugs survive to create a stronger species, but not a different one.

The letter writer says the Bible is not a scientific textbook. True. But that does not make it inconsistent with science. She calls it “myth, legend and history” — value judgments outside the scope of science.

There is ample basis to hold current theories of origins with suspicion. Irreducible complexities within cells, the statistical improbability of life and the sheer necessity of intelligent design logically support a theistic viewpoint. If God is, and he has acted, how foolish to exclude his role from discussion.

L. Clark Simpson
Birmingham

Nothing quite like assuming the answer to show that the answer is true, eh?