Critical thinkers don’t ignore scientific facts
LETTERS
Tony Ouwerkerk’s 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 Ouwerkerk’s 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 Darwin’s 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 Science has never relied upon “blind faith” to stubbornly cling to an outdated line of thinking.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 Darwin’s, 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 Ouwerkerk’s 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