• Comment

More faith required for evlolution than intelligent design

Posted: January 22, 2014 - 12:05am

Dear editor:

I think it is safe to say Republicans don’t have a problem with science. But regardless of the political affiliation, many thinking people have a problem with evolutionary explanations about the origin of the universe or life, and in particular about its claims concerning the source of the diversity of life. Contrary to your boilerplate response that any questioning of evolution must be “religious” in nature, the reality is that greater and greater “faith” is required in evolution to believe in its ability to accomplish what it is credited with doing. You may be mindlessly accepting the scientific establishment’s dogma that given enough time and chances “life will find a way.” (That may be a clever and popular cliché, but please remember it’s from the first Jurassic Park movie – not exactly the best source of real scientific information.)

Have you read anything (say even in the last 20 months) related to the new discoveries being made in genetics or paleontology? The whole evolutionary concept of junk DNA has been wiped away by the research called “the ENCODE Project,” a follow-up to the Human Genome Project.

This new research has provided intelligent design proponents dramatic evidence to support the proposal that natural selection is insufficient to explain the complexity of the information systems involved in living organisms, and in particular in humans. Have you heard about all the soft organic tissue that is now frequently being found in supposedly 65 million year or older partially fossilized dinosaur bones?

The silly explanations offered by the staunch believers in evolutionary theory – the bones were deposited in sandy sediment or there are high amounts of iron in dinosaur blood thus preserving the red blood cells and vessels – reveal a complete inability on their part to objectively re-evaluate long held ideas. The fact that more people are questioning evolution indicates that more people are actually reading and learning what’s happening in modern scientific research these days, instead of getting their science education from movies. To see for yourself the number of highly trained and prominent scientists who have in agreement, signed the following statement, “we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Check out the list at www.dissentfromdarwin.org. I really doubt they’re all Republicans. You could tune your radio to 91.7 and hear Scripture on Creation every Saturday at 5 p.m.

Clarence Barinowski, Appling

  • Comment

Comments (3)

effete elitist liberal

what about gravity???

Clarence, you've got me thinking. Gravity? How do planes stay in the air? Atoms? Ever seen one? Big Bang? Something can't come from nothing. Paul Broun is right--evolution and all the rest it? Lies straight from the pit of Hell!



Heliocentrism is also clearly a lie

The Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."

All was well in the firmament until in the 15th century, Galileo attempted to fool us into believing that it was the earth that revolved around the sun, and not vice versa. His math was sound, but stellar parallax was a bit hard to observe with the instruments of the day. He attempted to use annular parallax - a clearly observable and also well known phenomenon - as a bolster to his argument, but the learned bishops and cardinals, keepers of The Truth and guardians of all knowledge, would have none of that. The Good Book clearly put the lie to the astronomer's hoax.

The Church, using as evidence the Biblical facts stated above, tried him for heresy, had him recant, and comdemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life. 450 years later, they admitted that perhaps Galileo was on to something, but it was no longer a matter of importance.


Either the men who wrote the Bible DIDN'T KNOW that the earth goes 'round the sun... or The Almighty cleverly concealed that from us, for whatever reason He may have had. Or, more likely, scientists are lying to us.

If you're going to return to the spiritually enriching Middle Ages, a time of irrationality and superstition, you've got many things to un-learn.

Lee Bowman

'Evolution is True', but Darwin's seminal premise may not be ...

Evolution is true as someone once said, and yes, it's a fact. But to extrapolate that truism to the summary statement that all of the proposed naturalistic formative mechanisms were evolution's sole operatives as well, even though non-replicable (empirically demonstrable/ testable], is holding to a premise without direct empirical evidence.

The evidence for evolution is multifaceted, from an overview based on lineage progressions (fossil evidence) to chromosomal homologies and other genetic congruencies. Not at all equatable with simple physical property examples such as gravitation, which is empirically (directly) testable.

The outright and forthright complexities and synergies, both within bio structures and between biological entities, could not have happened totally by chance events, however selected upon. With no look-ahead ability, and with no reproductive or survival advantages to most required intermediates, odds of occurring would be infinitesimal, regardless of time spans.

Natural selection of adaptive enhancements, largely quantitative rather than qualitative alterations, and which there is empirical evidence of (hair, bone, pigmentation, metabolic enhancements), is plainly not conflatable with radical body plan revisions, or of co/multi-dependent systemics which require each/all to be in place for proper utilization.

So embrace the data, not a priori predictions that haven't panned out. Both natural selection (adaptation) and design (introduced genetic data) are likely operatives. In short, the 'descent from Darwinism' trend is NOT, as critics claim, wishful thinking, pushing religion, or an attack on science, but rather, a more honest and forthright assessment of the current data.