20 June 2009
Dear Dr. Carroll,

Your employment of creation-bashing masquerading behind the muse of “critical thinking” seems to me an obvious misuse and a gross injustice done towards your distinguished scholastic resume.  I would hope that a man so well educated as yourself in the value of the objective interpretation of empirical observations, would utilize his own strongly proposed method when integrating science with the world around us. 


reply: Well, you got my attention. I suppose that was the point of your bombast. Based on dozens of letters I've received that start as yours does, I predict that you will not provide a single example or piece of evidence to support your accusations.


I agree with you that Creation [sic] is, by its definition, infallible but, although evolution is, in theory, fallible, it is seldom, if ever, critically evaluated.  In my experience I have seen both evolutionists and creationists equally employ the methods you described to reconcile new evidence that was seemingly contradictory to their respective ideas.


reply: Nice shift from my "masquerading" as a critical thinker to the claim that evolution is rarely critically evaluated. I'll let what I've already written and published stand as my defense to the charge of masquerading. To the charge that evolution is rarely critically evaluated I can only reply by noting that you don't know what you're talking about. To make such a claim reveals the paucity and poverty of your experience.


By the way, I never claim that creationism is infallible. I might claim that some believers in creationism think that the Bible is infallible and that stories of talking snakes and creation of humans out of clay or ribs are infallibly true stories. But I would never claim that creationism is infallible, since I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the idea of some powerful being creating the universe is both false and absurd.


For you to propose that it is only, or even predominantly creationists that are dogmatic and uncritical in their engagement of observation is either naïve, willfully ignorant, or both.  I would expect a well-respected doctor such as yourself to, at the very least, practice what he preaches.  Unfortunately, a hypocritical and pridefully dogmatic tone permeates all of your writings that I have read in a seemingly obvious self-contradiction.


reply: As noted above, I predict you will not provide a single example or piece of evidence to support your accusations.


Simply put, sir, you have ironically become what you so obviously and brazenly hate: a pseudoscientific dogmatist in support of the religion of Evolution [sic].


reply: Your evidence?


I sincerely hope that you will read and, at least consider what I have written and that you will truly arrive at your goal of unbiased critical evaluation, wherever that leads your conclusions. 


Thank you for your time.