The debate over evolution versus creationism is like comparing apples to oranges

There were two more creationist letters in the April 12 issue of the T.O. Acorn. Lorin Wainwood's letter has already been refuted by my letter in the April 5 issue. However, I cannot see how such a depth of ignorance of biology and the scientific method could be cured without at least an introductory course in biology at an accredited college or university.

The letter from Kevin Urquhart does require an answer as it is filled with factually incorrect statements and distortions. Almost all of the individuals cited in the letter lived prior to Darwin's time and the origin of the science of biology. Therefore, they really had nothing to say about the subject. Only two of the individuals cited had anything to do with basic biology.

Carolus Linnaeus was a physician who put together the first modern taxonomy (classification) of all known organisms. While he did his work a century prior to Darwin, it was his demonstration of the unity of life that led to so quick an acceptance of biological evolution as a fact a century later. The reason Linnaeus' classification is still largely used today is that he based his classification on the evolutionary relationships of organisms, rather than their superficial characteristics. While he never came out and stated that all these creatures were clearly descended from a common ancestor, it is obvious from his writing that he understood this to be the case.

Gregor Mendel was a monk who did some brilliant genetic experiments in his spare time. While he did his experiments prior to the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species," it was his work that led to the refutation of all other theories of evolution and an acceptance of Darwin's. Analysis of his work demonstrates conclusively that natural selection, in its various forms, is the driving creative force in evolution. If he was a "creationist," he certainly never insinuated it in any of his scientific articles.

While Albert Einstein was certainly not a biologist, he did write several papers defending Darwinian Theory and the factual nature of biological evolution. There is nowhere in his writing any insinuation that he didn't believe in the scientific explanation of life.

I understand that the Acorn publishes the letters that are sent to them regardless of the absurdity of their content. Unfortunately, the "debate" between creationists and scientists is one of ignorance versus knowledge. It's no more worthwhile than debating whether or not the moon is made of green cheese.
Charles B. Eastman
Westlake Village