Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Evolution can’t answer basic scientific questions

Mr. Duran’s April 7 letter (“Design without a creator? Yes, it’s possible”) leaves unanswered many basic scientific questions. (Questions that everybody, including a student like me, can understand; no complicated theories here!)

Contrary to Mr. Duran’s opinion, I have critically examined both sides of the issue and have come to believe that creation by God is the best theory that fits the facts.

In previous letters I have rebutted Mr. Duran’s claims, and instead of arguing the same points over and over, I would like to bring some fresh ideas into this debate.

All evolutionary theories (like the “big bang”) assume that matter was already present in the beginning. Where did this matter originally come from if God did not create it?

Where did the genders come from if God did not create male and female? Single-celled organisms simply divide to reproduce, but reproduction in higher creatures is obviously more complex.

It staggers the mind to think that compatible male and female creatures evolved at the same time, at the same rate, and exactly in the same area. Without those improbable events happening, wouldn’t all the creatures have died out since they couldn’t reproduce?

Where did all the unbelievably huge oil and coal reserves come from? The formation of oil and coal requires that organic materials be buried very quickly (before they decompose) and under great pressure. The most logical explanation for these vast deposits is a global flood.

Where did all the fossils come from? This question is related to the oil-and-coal question because cataclysmic circumstances are required for their formation also. (Very, very few fossils are being formed today because the conditions required for their formation seldom exist.) Since millions of fossils have been found, a global flood again would explain this fact.

Why are there marine fossils on mountains, including Mt. Everest? Again, a global flood provides a good explanation for this fact.

Where are all the transitional forms in the fossil record? Millions of fossils have been found, but only very few are still paraded as “transitional forms.” (Most of these “transitional forms” have been quietly discarded by evolutionists themselves over the years.)

Even Charles Darwin observed, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”

More recently, Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History wrote, “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book [about evolution]. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... Yet [Steven J.] Gould [a very famous evolutionist] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line: there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” The “missing links” are still missing!

Evolution can’t explain the complex instincts and behavior patterns of animals. Mr. Duran claims that “birds aren’t that smart.” Or are they?

Consider the Arctic tern that flies from pole to pole. The parents leave weeks before the chicks do, and the chicks are not left a map to follow. Now imagine the first Arctic tern. If it had no built-in instincts, it would have gotten lost over the ocean and died, and there would not have been any surviving Arctic terns!

Mr. Duran also mentions the “dumb” bee. Bees survive by sending scouts to find food. The scouts tell the other bees where the food is located by a complex dance that tells direction, distance, and even the type of food. But, if the first bees didn’t understand the signal dance, wouldn’t they have died out from lack of food?

Mr. Duran desperately wants to believe in a universe “without the need for a God.” Evolution is basically “scientific” atheism because it removes any need for God. It tells where we came from (goo), where we are going (nowhere), and why we are here (who knows?).

This may surprise people, but I want evolution discussed in schools, ALL of it, including its scientific failures.

Why would any reasonable, free-thinking person object to intelligent debate? Why is there a need to call names and smear your opponent? Why do teachers often squash debate instead of encouraging it? If evolution is as healthy and robust as its supporters claim, they should have no fear of debate.

However, observing the tenacity and hatred with which evolutionists support their theory, you would think that they are (gasp!) closed-minded, ignorant Christians!

In conclusion, I would like to close with this very appropriate quote from a famous person: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” — Charles Darwin.

Jeremy Conley

Peachtree City, Ga.