I won’t transcribe his letter, that was published on the 23rd of April 2014 in the Coeur d’Alene Press. Nor will I express any disappointment with his opinion. What I will point out is the particular irony and hypocrisy that surrounds the whole evolutionary/biology debate. First of all, how possible would it be for human scientists to form organic substances from inorganic materials? We don’t know that, yet; but we do have proof of selective breeding as well as of hybridization, that led to “improvements” in our food crops, beef and dairy cattle, draft horses, breeds of cats, dogs, etc. In short, working with what we already have, humanity had no problem “improving” upon God’s creation. Which is what no anti-evolutionary writer is prepared to discuss, or for that matter, neither will Mr. Ortmann.
What also isn’t discussed, how did God create DNA, amino acids, short proteins and other essentials, after making a fleshy man out of a statue? The scientist is to be derided for basing his experiments on “religion,” but it would take religion to make the former argument. After many centuries of mankind improving upon God’s handiwork, why would it not be possible to replicate the creation of organic matter from inorganic material? Literally, to show the world how God had managed to perform this feat. That’s the problem with the radical religionists, they do prefer a leap of faith to anything observable, on a fact-based piece of evidence.
There is unquestionably a lot of ignorance behind the anti-science letter writers. That is an ignorance in the face of: walking into a grocery store and selecting grades of beef, developed exclusively from selective breeding to create the best quality meat. Or a variety of poultry or fish, farmed versus wild caught: resulting in a difference in taste, texture, or color. Because each type of fish, for example, is raised in a different type of environment. The same proving just as true of poultry. To select among apples for sale, Galas, Red or Yellow Delicious, Granny Smiths or Jonagolds. Without taking into consideration, that the apple trees Johnny Appleseed planted, had nothing in common with the types of apples bred today. Of course not, because horticulturalists created this produce diversity. Equally so, they produced a diversity of colors among bulb and tuber plants. Improving colors and creating new ones among perennial and annual flowers. Look in any seed and nursery catalog, you will find an abundance of what plant breeders created. It would take what Darwin discovered about biology: the isolation of species, the randomness of genetic mutation; for plant and animal breeders to get a better grasp on the kinds of results they would want. To ultimately create, the types of plants and animals they would like to have. Literally, they applied Darwin’s evolutionary theory for practical purposes.
Plant and animal breeding had undoubtedly gone on for thousands of years, prior to “Darwin’s Dangerous Ideas.” Then it can be said, that he gave a vocal recognition to, the biological process that it would take to even make it possible. Just as he toured the world and noted, the distinct varieties of cattle, lizards, birds, etc. that were unique to each specific geographical locations. It wouldn’t take much to also figure out, if each species of animal is only adapted to one geographical location, then they might not survive in another. The same being true of types of plants. Take another look at those seed and nursery plants, note where it says “Zoned for?” Note the zoning map that each seed and nursery catalog is usually displaying? Certain kinds of perennial plants can survive in the coldest zones. Others can only survive in the warmest zones. When you already have the biological evidence of survivability of species, through adaptation to their specific environment; then it is also way too late to try to deride Darwin’s theory as “religious.” The factual evidence already exists to support it. What is being laid out here, is that it really doesn’t take much to get educated. The anti-science people have no interest in being educated. But in the name of “religious freedom” and the freedom of speech, they still want to be heard.