Letters: It’s evolution that’s based on faith

Many local papers carried an AP story decrying the fact that some charter schools would teach creationism and challenge evolution. God forbid! I mean Big Bang forbid!

The critics always point to evolution as a “scientific fact” and argue that creationism is a religious theory. I beg to differ.

You don’t have to be an MIT graduate to understand that the belief that nothing blew up and created a single-cell amoeba that over billions of years became a monkey then a man is not a scientific fact. It is not provable nor does it even follow the basic laws of science.

The laws of physics teach us that the Earth and every thing in it are in a state of entropy (decline), not evolving upward. Secondly, the fossil record which would have millions of transitional fossils (half bird, half fish) as Darwin purported is completely bankrupt of any, much less a “missing link.”

I often ask people to look at anything in a room (table, clock, TV, stove) and tell me if there is any chance that thing just “happened.” The answer is always, “No, somebody made that.” Yet the professors of wisdom want us to believe that a tree or a human body that is a trillion times more complex just happened! The Bible sums it up in the book of Romans, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

Mike Fuselier

educator

St. Martinville

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 10/08/2012

I didn't read all of these comments, but I bet God is having a good laugh at all of those titles such as micro and macro and evolution theory etc. that us humans make up in our meager futile attempt to explain how God created everything from absolutely nothing at all . Heck, we haven't even been able to read or write very long in comparison to the age of the universe and now we make up new words that we think can explain everything.

2) Comment by potkcalb - 10/08/2012

It was not too many years ago that creationists vehemently denied any aspect of evolution, for example that changes could take place within species. Now most appear to accept what they call "microevolution" and blithely assume that it was God's plan all along. It is a only a matter of time before they accept that one species can turn into another and that too was God's plan. If Curiosity finds no evidence that life may have existed on Mars I will not be surprised to hear the fundamentalists say "I told you so, I told you so." But if evidence of life or life is found they will say that it proves that God is everywhere. We are encountering the same thing with the Anthropic Principle, that life could only exist on earth because of the "fine tuning" of the environment required for life to exist. That old canard will be discarded because now it is estimated that there are billions and billions of planets in the observable universe that could sustain life. I'll say one thing for the creationists. They are experts at moving the goal posts.

3) Comment by CRW - 09/08/2012

@different viewpoint: You really need to do some more reading. Only ID folks recognize this false dichotomy in evolution. Scientists only use the word "evolution." If you would like some species that appear to be in the middle of what you call "macro-evolution," how about these? Monotremes - egg laying mammals whose morphology is closer to birds and reptiles than mammals. There are two alive today. Mudskippers who breath air and walk on land on lobe like fins with protruding eyes like a frog. East african skinks who give birth to placental young just like mammals. (recent discovery) Alligators and crocodiles with four chambered hearts and semi- homeostatic systems. I could go on and on and on with living species displaying supposed "macro-evolution." However, most creationists and ID folks won't be discouraged by facts.

4) Comment by potkcalb - 09/08/2012

Sorry about that different viewpoint. Behe has been roundly and soundly ridiculed by the scientific community at large and rightly so.He's history.You have been sucked in by the creationist agenda. Try NOVA Science Now or the Dover, PA School Board case for information reflecting the views of scientist (and no Judge Jones was not an "activist judge" but a Republican appointed by a Republican president.

5) Comment by a different viewpoint - 09/08/2012

To potkcalb: Ah, so you are unable to truly defend MACRO-evolution, and thereby are reduced to resorting to ad hominem attacks? Tsk, tsk... I am certainly NOT bringing "ridicule" on myself by quoting Michael Behe and his scholarly works included in his two excellent books titled, "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution". I leave it to the intelligent, informed readers of this letter and subsequent comments to evaluate for themselves whether Intelligent Design is correct as I believe it to be. Again, the recommended resources and links that I have shared with the readers in this and my previous comments on this thread are truly valuable, insightful, and informative! Good Night All! : )

6) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 09/08/2012

@ potkcalb: "...embarrassing nonsense" but that tends to substantiate the descent from apes, maybe? The Livingston Parish School Board may be the missing link. Adam and Eve must have been very busy to produce the vast diversity of the human gene pool in just 6 thousand years which produces a creationist dilemma: genetic mutations occurred over a very short time (due to inbrededness?) which may explain why there are so many blathering idiots. Hmmm, call me a fervent creationist. PS. It just occurred to met that a disproof of the 6000 thousand year creationist by mathematical reduction of human procreation and longevity would be very simple. It would be mathematical tediudry for me but there it is. Me, I believe that creationists exist and are descended from the depths of Mordor.

7) Comment by potkcalb - 09/08/2012

I repeat whether you call it "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" or by any other euphemism its not just nonsense its embarrassing nonsense. Behe has been effectively dismissed. Don't bring ridicule on yourself by quoting him.

8) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

Neil Degrasse Tyson on intelligent design: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

9) Comment by krl777 - 09/08/2012

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is specious. Putative instances of macro-evolution (e.g., the horse lineage) exhibit exactly the sort of changes that are plausibly effected by small copying errors and mutations on the genome. Because of the nature of ontogenetic development, small differences in timing or placement of parts can make for big differences the final product. For example, simple multiplication of a program to produce body segments with symmetrical limbs can change a single-segment insect body plan into a multiple-segment body plan. Retention of juvenile characteristics for longer in development (neotony) can produce a human-like member of the ape family with a big head (us). Evolutionary theory, under its modern synthesis with microbiology, predicts exactly these patterns in the fossil record. Intelligent design doesn't. In fact, the only prediction that Intelligent Design makes is that the designs of organisms should show intelligence. And this prediction is false -- the designs of humans and other creatures are not intelligent. No intelligent designer would have put the prostrate gland surrounding the urethra in human males.

10) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

All of those articles are authored ( 1 coauthored) by one man, Michael Behe. He is best know for his theory of irreducible complexity, which is an argument from ignorance. Also, only 3 of those were published in peer reviewed journals. This is directly from the Wikipedia page on irreducible complexity: "The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]" and then, "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. I am not going to waste my time with one man's view, which is not supported by the scientific community.

11) Comment by a different viewpoint - 09/08/2012

I will simply state again as I have in my previous comment that one has to understand the difference between MICRO-evolution and MACRO- evolution to fully understand the parameters of what is being discussed when conversing about evolution. As I stated earlier, there is a vast and critical difference between MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution. It is most certainly a difference of a QUALITATIVE nature and not just a quantitative nature. The concept of Intelligent Design fully agrees with and supports what is called. MICRO-evolution(change within a species, rather than an actual change from one species to another.) To be precise, the common assertion of having descended from apes that you hear in many circles from both those who agree with and those who do not agree with the concept of MACRO-evolution specifically (Note the assertions of one of your most frequent macro-evolution supporters today) is used in very loose terms quite often. Consider, though, that when those who subscribe to the theory of MACRO-evolution suppose that humans have descended from a common ancestor right along with apes, chipanzees, monkeys.....well, you get the picture. I am providing a link to an excellent reference source to provide a better understanding of Intelligent Design along with MICRO-evolution. (Remember: The concept of Intelligent Design is in full agreement with the existence of MICRO-evolution ~ Again, there is that critical difference between MICRO-evolution and MACRO- evolution!) P.S. You can use the copy and paste options on your browser to quickly import this rather long link and more easily access the website that I have referenced. It has links to at least thirty- three odd articles with a lot of very good insight and information regarding this: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php? command=submitSearchQuery&query=Michael%20J.%20Behe&orderBy= date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all

12) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

This is painful to watch, but it really helped me understand how creationists think, Richard Dawkins talks to Wendy Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

13) Comment by RationalOne - 09/08/2012

I think potkcalb touched on this, but I wonder if this so-called educator guy realizes that EVERY fossil and living thing is in a state of transition. Actually, I don't wonder that. I'm quite sure he doesn't realize this. Think of it this way, so-called educator: Imagine seeing a 90-year-old man's photo. Now look at a picture of him at age 87. Now look at one of him when he was 85. Not a lot of difference, huh? Now look at a photo of him at 60. Then at 58. Not a lot of difference, huh? But there is some difference between 58 & 60 and 85, 87, & 90, right? Now look at a baby picture of him. If you didn't know any better, you'd swear that it wasn't the same creature because it looks so different. But it's all the same creature. He's spent his whole life transitioning to an older human. Now say we can't find any photos of him between the ages of 21 and 48. Can you imagine the stupidity of saying that the entire process of aging is false because there are no "transitional" photos from age 21 to 48? Oh, and one last thing--something that even elementary school students know: Humans did not evolve from monkeys.

14) Comment by potkcalb - 09/08/2012

I feel like tearing my hair out in frustration at the appalling, shocking ignorance of what constitutes science as revealed by some of these posts. No one who knows anything about evolution believes or has claimed that humans evolved from apes. That statement is found only on ignorant Christian fundamentalist web sites.The macro/micro dichotomy is blatant nonsense. The difference between the two is quantitative (time line) not qualitative. And God (if there is one) forbid that we keep hearing this idiocy about "something being made from nothing." Please stop the embarrassing babble about "intelligent design." It is a belief, not a theory, the same belief that prevailed before the Age of Enlightenment that everything not understood must be attributable to a supernatural entity (see the Dover, PA School Board case). With that kind of thinking one despairs that the Middle and Dark Ages have not been left behind.

15) Comment by CRW - 09/08/2012

"Educator".... I pity your students, who are exposed to such extreme ignorance and misinformation. The second law arguments against evolution are broken at their core. The earth is not a closed system. We are continuously bombarded by radiation from the sun and other stellar objects, as well as being struck by matter entering our atmosphere. Consequently, the second law does not apply. The fact that less than .1% of species that have existed left fossils makes any sort of fossil argument difficult. The fact that we have so many that point to evolution is incredible. The evidence of evolution is much greater and diverse than just the fossil record. Finally, evolution, the big bang, and the abiogenesis hypothesis are not interdependent. Evolution is a theory of biological change - not cosmology and not life origins. The fact that you try to link two different theories and a hypothesis shows that you don't know what evolution covers. Educator? I think that is an oxymoron in this case or at the very least ironic.

16) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 09/08/2012

@different viewpoint: Your statement, "the whole concept of what evolution refers to in conversations between those who support the idea that humans evolved from apes and those who support micro- evolution..." tells me a lot. Evolutionary scientists do not claim that humans evolved from apes, your argument is a straw man. I will provide you a link that explains how and why scientists do not differentiate between macro and micro- evolution. However, I doubt you are capable of changing your mind, no matter what evidence is provided. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Macro- evolution

17) Comment by a different viewpoint - 09/08/2012

To jedleland and anyone else interested: I am providing the link to a website that does a good job of explaining discrepancies with the list of skulls you mentioned that supposedly support macro-evolution of humans. If you search around further on the same website that I am providing a link to you will also find very interesting reading that explains the HUGE and all important difference between MACRO-evolution that has NOT been scientifically proven and has no "missing links" in the fossil record to support it, and MICRO-evolution which is wholeheartedly supported by the Intelligent Design viewpoint. Again, the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution cannot be understated and plays a totally PIVOTAL role in understanding the whole concept of what evolution refers to in conversations between those who support the idea that humans evolved from apes and those who support micro-evolution and the role it subsequently plays in Intelligent Design. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/erectus

18) Comment by Chucky - 09/08/2012

Just look at a dogs teeth and tell me evolution did not play a role. How can something so complicated be made by nothing ? Now the Cat is the problem, but we can attribute this to entropy. Adam and Eve by God's Grace gave them more chromosomes than we have today. Going back to “Sliders”

19) Comment by DMJ - 09/08/2012

Adam and Eve is a parable, the lesson of which being: those who think this story is real are a bunch of rubes.

20) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 09/08/2012

were adam and eve white, black, oriental, eskimo, maybe latino? Sure a lot of genetic variation these days, but marrying one's sister wouldn't provide a lot of variation.

21) Comment by [e-mail] - 09/08/2012

KilgoreTrout, after watching "Ancient Aliens", it's hard to say but I do believe that they came from the same general area as Adam and Eve along with their sons.

22) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 08/08/2012

Where exactly did the wives of Adam and Eve's sons come from? What does it mean in Genesis 6 that the sons of God married the daughters of men? Not to be sacrilegious but simple mathematical reduction in a strict creationist world indicate an unmentionable paradox, regardless of the validity of evolution. Sigh, back to my reading...

23) Comment by Lary9 - 08/08/2012

Mr. Fuselier, as an educator, you really ought to maintain more of an open mind and learn something first about what you are criticizing before you pretend to characterize it as anything at all...much less "faith" based. You made so many errors in referencing evolution that clearly you are attacking a strawman, not real evolution. You have a false understanding of it. As an educator (sciences) myself, I've found that most people that reject the science of evolution are sincere but they don't understand it well enough to pass a basic quiz in Intro.To Biology 101. It's not half as ominous as you think but it demands more nuanced thinking than Genesis-science believers are used to practicing.

24) Comment by greeneto - 08/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

25) Comment by Chucky - 08/08/2012

@jedleland- Ok got my fix for the day am now going to watch reruns of 'Sliders" @DMJ-LOL

26) Comment by DMJ - 08/08/2012

We landed on the moon?!?!

27) Comment by chem - 08/08/2012

I agree with the comments about civility, but having said that, people who write letters like Mr. Fuselier's are simply regurgitating talking points from the creationist's playbook and have neither the capacity nor the ambition to learn what science offers. Unlike these religious crazies, science will change its point of view if new evidence comes to light that requires a theory to be modified. A good case in point is Newtonian physics. Works just fine when dealing with large bodies moving slowly, relative to light. Along comes Einstein with his special and general theories of relativity and physicists changed their way of thinking about space, time, and gravity. Newtonian physics still apply, just not for certain things. Even Einsteins relativity breaks down when dealing with subatomic particles. A new branch of physics, quantum mechanics, has given incredible insight into the area of very small particles travelling at or near the speed of light. And to this day, there has never been an experiment that refutes those three separate, but related areas of physics. So when someone writes a letter stating that science is just so much bunk, he deserves peoples derision. I am a scientist, and when I was young, I was a Catholic. I gave up the church and relgion when I entered my 20's. I know about both sides, and based on reason, logic, evidence, and probabilities, I, now at age 59, can state unequivocally that there is no god, that there is no supernatural influence in the cosmos.

28) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

in other words its all about im right and youre wrong all the time and for every one of us no exceptions

29) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

that sounds like a nice idea but we all do it, whether we call others liars or dumb as a bag of hammers or just plain jerks thats why people go to messageboards anonymously so they can be the aggerssor that they cant be in real life or live a fantasy or be something they either want to be or are no longer able to be in normal existence none of us is here to accept new ideas and grow just to make point after point against those that disagree and hope to make them look foolish and so make us feel better about whatever is missing in our lives that we need this outlet. we know noone will ever change their mind on anything including ourselves and thats not the point its adverserial by nature not conversational and to pretend otherwise is self decieving. did you never wonder why so few people come here every day its always the same few people in a population of many thousands which tells me we are here for our own needs and not to help anyone or learn anything but to fill whatever is missing and be someone else for a short while to make us feel important so if that means a fantasy of pretending to be a revolutionary freedom warrior (marchiafava) or engaging people obviously smarter than you to make up for feelings of intellectual inadequacy (phil there) or getting your kicks from looking down on people like a schoolmarm and pretending to be superior to their petty squabbles (nimby) or any number of other tortured reasons including my own which you can infer yourselves none are couched in dignity or come from a position of strength and its the same all over the internet just google marchiafava and see how many sites he infests with his baloney every day and there are millions like us doing the same thing every day to fill in that gap and get out that aggression and make the other guy look stupid thats the only reason these places thrive and lets not pretend otherwise marchiafava will never admit hes a phony and mr fusilier will never change his mind and neither will i and noone on a messageboard ever has or ever will no matter what the debate or argument as thats not the point. so keep those names coming no need to be obsene of course but messageboards do not trade in civility and cooperation and like krl777 just said if someone is selling a line of ***** then they need to be called out on it me included

30) Comment by Chucky - 08/08/2012

The letter is the same as saying 'We did not land on the moon' and 'the earth is flat' or Obama is not an Ameriacan citizen. It is very easy to start calling names, but I agree that we should not.

31) Comment by nimby? - 08/08/2012

krl777 and potkcalb , agreed . lack of understanding can be frustrating . Mr. Fuselier is only expressing his honest opinion to the best of his ability , which he has a right to do . if there are inaccuracies it is better to correct than insult . character assassination of someone you've never met is unnecessary ...

32) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

nimby?, I am generally sympathetic to your calls for greater civility. But to repeat a comment I made before, the contempt for science shown by people like Fuselier is exhibited first and foremost in their failure to learn any of it before they comment on it. If I were to comment on (say) Native American history without knowing anything about Native American peoples and their languages and cultures, or the physical, epidemiological and cultural genocide that was visited on them by invading Europeans, I would consider myself to be polluting our public discourse with my ignorance. It is important for us, as Americans and as human beings, to have some rudimentary knowledge of science, the peoples of the world, and history. People who gratuitously or maliciously muddy the waters by perpetrating demonstrable falsehoods or basic confusion on these topics need to be confronted. An ignorant population is easy prey to religious, ethnic, and other chauvinisms and hatreds which can be whipped up to serve evil agendas.

33) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

i should say that the first website i cited 'theistic evolution' which has all those skulls in sequence up to the modern human is published by a guy named carl drews who is devoutly religious but realizes that evolution is a fact and welcomes it and takes creationists to task for their wilful ignorance. he even ends his post on a long prayer and discussion of what adam and eve mean to him historically vs symbolically all of that and yet he makes it clear that evolution of humans from earlier apes is as clear as it can be and only to be rejected by fundamentalists and knownothings. not all faithful have their heads in the sand but some do and thats on them i guess

34) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

no problem and glad to share i dont see how anyone can look at that sequence of fossils from modern chimp then through 12 other steps to modern human, all found in the right rock strata at the right age and not see the blindingly obvious unless those fossils and skulls were all just human mutants or disabled humans and we happened to find a series of them that exactly fit the evolutionary model and in exactly the right sequence i mean its just ridiculous isnt it

35) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

jedleland, thanks for the excellent links and suggestions.

36) Comment by potkcalb - 08/08/2012

We are urged by some here to speak more kindly and humanely in our comments about letters and of those who respond to the letters. We should but some of the letters, and the comments made in response to them, are so naive and devoid of even the most basic understanding of what constitutes science that one just gives up on trying to deal with them on a content and intellectual level.

37) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

man i reckon im the only one left who cares about this one but take a look at temnospondyli if you dont think there are any trasitional fossils this thing was found not too long ago and google has plenty of pictures and articles its the craziest looking thing like a half fish half alligator but right inbetween a fish and a reptile. theres loads of research on it now so google it and see if it has any bearing on fusilier and his belief that the fossil record is bankrupt but you know if you dont want to accept whats in front of you then youll find a reason not to, but take a look at it anyway cause its something to see!

38) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

use wikipedia its easy and theyre all there

39) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

fusilier makes the same mistake all fundamentalists do and thinks his bible is the only bible when we know there are hundreds the world over and thousands in history and all as true as each other to their believers. relying on one just because of local cultural dominance is not wise and only indicates provincialism that is shared by all the other true believers worldwide not matter what it is they believe. so sure read your bible and get out of it what you can but remember two things its not a history book in any way (ask yourself how it was that Judas died and what became of him cause Acts and Matthew have two completely different stories) and not a science book unless you believe that Pi is 3 and not 3.14... and number two dont limit yourself to just one book look at lots you dont have to read them all just find out whats in them and what their believers take from them and what they have in common and where they differ and pretty soon youll see just how provincial and limiting fundamentalist faith really is when it insists on denying the obvious like evolution that every university lab scientist and school in the western world accepted 100 years ago

40) Comment by phil - 08/08/2012

Also everyone should read the ENTIRE Bible in addition to all of those scientific books listed in the comment below. I have, and I still believe in God because all of the science books lead me to believe that everything is just too complicated to have just appeared from nothing and evolved into what it is now. Besides, science still does not answer the question "why".

41) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

a general statement? baloney you clearly meant the letter writer was ignorant and the commenters arrogant and i was the jerk and of course as usual you were above all of it and you got called out for your smug superiority and now your waffling in general terms and backpedalling and trying to take the high road but that horse already escaped didnt it? you sure arent more concerned about where WE as a people are going instead of where weve been when you go on for the umpteenth time about YOUR people and diseased blankets and your usual routine all of a sudden is your people and WE goes right out the window if your worried about humility then quit looking down your nose and pretending to be above the fray cause if you really were youd go out and do something with your life and not waste it on messageboards every day you cant stay away any more than anyone else and pretensions to superiority like youre tutting at a class full of school kids wont wash your no less a guilty child than me or anyone else and seems to me im not the only one whos spotted it right? and the ellipses are fooling noone if you need a gimmick as transparent as that to feel superior then maybe you arent so superior none of us are its an internet messageboard and if any of us had lives we wouldnt be here

42) Comment by potkcalb - 08/08/2012

One can only despair at an American public that is abysmally ignorant of geology, genetics, cosmology, microbiology, paleoanthropology etc. but is absorbed with mindless network television trivia such as World's Funniest People, Survivor, Money Drop, Wipeout, Lives of the Rich and Famous, Bachelor and Bachelorette, boring sexcapades, humorless and often vulgar situation comedies, and endless and endless boring crime, lawyer, and hospital shows.

43) Comment by nimby? - 08/08/2012

I expressed my honest opinion , a general statement directed at no one , that it touched a nerve , well . a discussion in a recent thread brought out the words ethics and morality . I'd like to throw out one more , humility ; how WE address ourselves and our fellow Americans . WE have become a hateful people . certain subjects generate more animosity than others , this being one . seems to me it would be more logical to worry about where WE are going than where WE came from . continuing down this angry path serves no purpose ...

44) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

Expressing a common creationist sentiment, Whatnow says, "It's all in what each of us believe, now isn't it? Nothing is fact. No one was there to take notes." [end quote] Fortunately, the police do not take this advice when they conduct murder investigations. The murderer may have subsequently killed himself. Nobody still alive was there to take notes. But police can often piece together what happened, by inference from the clues left, thus clearing a falsely accused suspect. The historical sciences of geology, paleontology and cosmology employ the same method of inference to the best explanation, as in fact, does microbiology, dealing as it does with things we cannot directly observe with our senses. "Nothing is fact" is a creed of nihilism, the creed of a civilization begging to be supplanted by a more vigorous, fact-heeding one, whether uttered by loopy-left postmodern intellectuals (most postmodern intellectuals are actually not loopy) or religious fundamentalists.

45) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

a good website to look at with color pictures is http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html which has 13 transition skull fossils going from 2.6 million years ago to around today and you can clearly see the transition like the nose on your face even if fuselier says there are no such fossils take a look its good stuff its also avialable at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html why do people keep on denying whats so darn obvious? doesnt mean some sort of god didnt start it all if thats what you want to believe but yes there are known facts and even if noone took notes we have tons and tons and tons of evidence and it all points to one thing and only literal fundamentalist creationists cant stand it

46) Comment by chem - 08/08/2012

I guess the perfect mission to Mars that culminated in the perfect landing of Curiosity on the surface of Mars was all god's will. Everybody at JPL prayed to god to assemble the rover, the rocket, the computers, etc. Science and scientists are just stupid people that don't have any facts. It was god, not science, that made that mission perfect.

47) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

And calling people arrogant or ignorant right off the bat first thing in the morning isnt talking down to them at all is it? get over yourself youre no better than anyone else here just more smug and patronizing and ive seen plenty of people call you out on your condescension already but you cant stay away any more than anyone else even if you pretend to be above it all. And lose the affectation of the ellipse already its just there to give the pretence of wisdom and intelligence. If you have to rely on a gimmick to seem smart then what does that really say about how smart you really are. There are jerks for sure including me but being smug and superior is nothing to be proud of either and just as jerky if not more so it’s a comment page on the internet what do you expect?

48) Comment by nimby? - 08/08/2012

getting to be an easy choice . whether or not "you share this guys doctrine" , trying to convince someone to share your views while belittling them , talking down to them isn't very smart , unless that was the original intent . then it becomes childish , petty . a jerk with the facts is still a jerk ....

49) Comment by Whatnow - 08/08/2012

It's all in what each of us believe, now isn't it? Nothing is fact. No one was there to take notes.

50) Comment by potkcalb - 08/08/2012

Is it possible that gerald is even more ignorant than Fuselier?

51) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

Come on man just because you share this guys doctrine doesnt mean his letter is any good its already been pointed out that he gets entropy and thermodynamics completely wrong. guess what he gets the fossil record wrong too he says there are no transitional fossils when there are lots and lots Archeopteryx is the first i thought of but here is a link to many many more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils. fuselier is a teacher for young offenders in a small facility and does some good work with helping them read and write and get their GED hes a good man but one of those guys who is kinda drugged up on religion you know the kind? like they swapped one drug for another and let it take over their life a bit and write bad letters to newspapers? he's no science teacher for sure but he helps young people so credit to him for that.

52) Comment by DMJ - 08/08/2012

Don't send your kids to school in St. Martinville, folks. Apparently, morons teach school there. But hey, if you do you can send your kid on a field trip to the creationist museum and they can ride a dinosaur, just like Adam and Eve did 4000 years ago. Thanks for the letter, Mr. Fuselier. I needed some cheering up this morning.

53) Comment by [e-mail] - 08/08/2012

Great piece Mr. Fuselier! I suppose that all of the detractors on this post are incensed that you dare to state the obvious flaw in the THEORY of Evolution. It all has to be taken on faith because there's no proof. It just goes to show that the anachronistic herd instinct is alive and well, and those who blindly accept whatever theory is advanced by scientists who postulate what could have happened as gospel are afflicted with it. Haw Haw Haw!

54) Comment by Lannonmac - 08/08/2012

This letter is Exhibit 1 for the case against teaching religion in Public Schools or allowing public money to be spent in private schools. The shear ignorance displayed by Mr. Fuselier is appalling and the really scary thing is that he is an “Educator.” If this is an example of what religious private schools want to teach our children we have a serious problem. Sounds more like what a kid would learn in a Pakistani Madrassa than what a kid should learn in an American school.

55) Comment by shad-o - 08/08/2012

Scary. The signature on your letter implies that you are an "Educator". If this is an example of teachers in Louisiana then we are in trouble.

56) Comment by chem - 08/08/2012

I take back what I said earlier about everything in Mr. Fuselier's letter was wrong. His 3rd paragraph is correct. You do not need a degree from MIT or anywhere else to know that ...nothing blew up... That's because that is NOT what science states, nor is that being taught by legitimate educators. If Mr. Fuselier wants to talk about injustice in teaching, why doesn't he take to task the fundamentalist schools that ARE teaching that science states exactly that and are teaching impressionable kids that man roamed the Earth with dinosaurs. I guess some of those religious nuts watched too many Flintstone cartoons and took that as fact.

57) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

But the maybe condescending or even self righteous does anyone else have any suggestions

58) Comment by jedleland - 08/08/2012

If you cant choose i have some suggestions i reckon we all agree might suit you best how about smug patronising and superior yep i reckon those are on the money

59) Comment by nimby? - 08/08/2012

I see the sharp tongues are in attack mode this morning . arrogance or ignorance , don't know which I prefer ...

60) Comment by 8point6 - 08/08/2012

Nothing new here. May God bless.

61) Comment by chem - 08/08/2012

Well Mr. Educator, there is nothing correct in your silly letter. You should be embarrassed making such incorrect statements and calling yourself an "educator." Could it be you are affiliated with one of those wacko religious schools that is teaching that sort of drivel? Mr. Fuselier, what does your statement about entropy not evolving upward? That does not even make any sense. The fossil record does indeed have many "missing links" if only you would do your own homework. If everyone where you "educate" is like you, I'm sure you will be a hero, but if you are the lone creationist, you will undoubedly be ostracized by your peers. Do your students a favor and find something else to do.

62) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

Only the most profound ignorance of biology would permit somebody to suggest that our reaction to a theory of the origins of a human artifact such as a clock or a TV should dictate our reaction to a theory of the origins of species. If electronic appliances put themselves together from surrounding materials through the action of a program encoded in appliance-germs (TV-germs, radio-germs, etc), and if appliances issued forth baby appliances with programs cobbled from bits of other appliance programs, but with occasional copying errors, and finally, if different individual appliances had different rates of success at passing on bits of their programs to new appliances based on how fit their own programs made them at reproduction, then, indeed, TVs could evolve from (say) radios, which could have evolved from electronic coffeepots, and so on back to the first accidental program for a crude semiconductor, all without design by God or human. If this were all as ridiculous as Fuselier thinks, then we would not have genetic algorithms, which solve nontrivial computational problems in computer science. The contempt for science by fundies (fundamentalists) like Fuselier is exhibited first and foremost in their failure to learn any of it before they comment on it.

63) Comment by krl777 - 08/08/2012

If Mike Fuselier knew any physics, he would know that it is nonsensical to say that something is "in a state of entropy (or decline)." Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system, and in itself, it is static -- neither on the increase, nor in decline. So not only does Mr. Fuselier miss the vital "closed system" condition on the second law of thermodynamics, he exhibits a category mistake in his understanding of what entropy is.

64) Comment by Bighug - 07/08/2012

Of course it makes much more sense to say some god just picked up a clump of dirt and made a human out of it. There are several stories, with different gods, to back up that theory. The one in the Bible was written by uneducated goat-herders some eight thousand years ago. Why does anyone believe that, other than it was taught to them as a child and they had no other choice? You are an adult now. THINK!

65) Comment by Chucky - 07/08/2012

Why God choose evolution? who knows, but He did.

66) Comment by potkcalb - 07/08/2012

Your letter is so ill informed that its embarrassing.You are hopelessly ignorant and its horrifying that you list yourself as an "educator." I would address some of your ridiculous assertions, but it would require a tome, and I don't think you are educable. But I can't refrain from making a few comments:The fossil record is replete with transitional forms (including you) and no scientist has ever made the statement that life just "happened" or that chance had anything to do with it. Entropy (disorganization) is applicable to a closed system. The earth is an open system stimulated by heat, light, water and thousands of tons of matter from space each year so that the emergence and propagation of life is not precluded.

67) Comment by Scrooge - 07/08/2012

Hmm wonder if Mr. Fuselier teaches science? Writing might be a stretch. PE would be a great specialty for him and is probably his raison d'être. . Some (many, the vast preponderance?) things are just beyond the feeble human mind. The Romans quote is certainly appropriate