By Letter to the Editor on March 2, 2017.

Tony Ouwerkerks passing reference to Darwin being wrong on several theories (Feb. 23) is typical of the cherry-picked facts constantly promulgated by Creationists. He asserts that a one-thousandth accuracy quoted in a National Geographic article is shaky evidence.

The November 2004 article included a subsequent statement conveniently omitted from Ouwerkerks assertion. That statement, far from confirming shaky evidence, pointed out that dozens of intermediate forms have subsequently been found. (It was referring to a 40-million-year-old whale fossil and so-called missing links.)

The entire article begins with the question Was Darwin wrong? Using biogeography, embryology, morphology and paleontology, the author correctly answers the question with a resounding No. He further explains his answer using more recent discoveries: Similarities between genetic makeup of species comparing the human genome with that of a mouse, bacterial drug resistance, viral mutations, extinctions and anatomical similarities between species. These latter examples being largely unknown to science in the 19th century.

In Darwins day, chromosomes had yet to be discovered and somewhat earlier, Galileo had been branded a heretic for challenging Catholic earth-centric dogma. Scientific discoveries continue across our world and beyond. Such findings may or may not confirm a particular hypothesis. Science has never relied upon blind faith to stubbornly cling to an outdated line of thinking.

In fact, it was not just Darwin who introduced the then radical idea of Evolution. A.R. Wallace, a contemporary of Darwins, introduced a similar concept. Today, that theory is backed by observation and experiment. It is not just a theory.

That the letter writer insists he is a critical thinker is interesting. Such a thinker must include all the facts and not simply use those that seemingly agree with a point of view or indeed, ignore those that would be critical of an observation. Ouwerkerk fails this test.

The very fact that his letter was defending publicly funded Christian schools and resorted to critiquing a valid component of science (Darwinism, call it what you will), is reason enough to question exactly what sort of scientific education children attending such schools, are receiving.

No doubt that as I write this, there are many of Ouwerkerks persuasion, who think the newly discovered Earth-like planets orbiting a distant star are simply an aberration. After all, the Earth is flat, our sun orbits the Earth and dinosaurs walked with our ancestors.

Science 101, right?

John P. Nightingale

Lethbridge

You must be logged in to post a comment.

See the article here:
Critical thinkers don't ignore scientific facts - Lethbridge Herald