I am glad The Post recently published a column challenging evolution; it's been a few years since we've had that debate, but I'll bite. Which articles, specifically, have you seen lately which refute God? Typically, the scientific method only aims to refute things that are falsifiable ' the claim of a creator deity is non-falsifiable and non-scientific, and therefore it would be a waste of research funding to attempt to refute God. A lot of research, however, is done studying processes like evolution (these become handy as bacteria evolve to be more resistant to different types of antibiotics, for example).
I'm amused, also, that we can so callously dismiss evolution and evolutionary science as an incredibly unrealistic coincidence. To students in the sciences, we find these coincidences quite realistic; many of us find them, well, incredibly so. I find typically that people who see evolution as an incredibly unrealistic coincidence seem to be people without much formal education in the matter; I wonder how many evolutionary science courses Ms. Griffith has taken, so that she has the authority of understanding to dismiss it so easily? Had only this column been published sooner, I would've known not to enroll in an evolutionary psychology course, wasting my time reading the works of published scholars in the field ' individuals who, unlike our Post columnist, have devoted their lives and efforts to study of the field.
I'm glad Ms. Griffith has found something to put her faith in. I'm sorry it's come at the expense of her education regarding matters scientific.
Keith Miller is a senior psychology major.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
