A further challenge on the topic of evolution
I hesitate to continue the opinion exchanges on evolution but, like Matthews Bradley, I feel the stakes are too high. Far from actually answering any questions or challenges in his last letter on Sept. 28, he once again continued personal attacks and misleading statements.
Since he has a Ph.D. he apparently thinks he can get away with broad generalities such as “evidence that the entire educated world accepts.” I guess I and my creationist cohorts should take umbrage here. Even though I don’t have a Ph.D. in anything, I can list a few of the hundreds who do and are creationists (a good number of them were evolutionists and even taught evolution until they took a good unbiased look at the evidence) So, here is my short list:
—David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology. He has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science for almost two decades,
—Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in biology. Founding editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and author of numerous technical papers in geology journals.
—Robert Gentry, world-famous nuclear physicist. His book, “Creation’s Tiny Mystery,” recounts how ACLU evolutionist witnesses failed to refute his discovery of evidence of Earth’s instant creation and so resorted to censoring discussion of this topic from scientific journals for over two decades.
Good time to mention the Glacial Lake Missoula flood; more unethical scientists at work. The concept of the Lake Missoula flood has had a controversial history. Based on geological observations back in 1923, J. Harlen Bretz postulated a gigantic flood in Eastern Washington from an unknown source. This started a storm of controversy that lasted about 40 years. The idea of the Lake Missoula flood was rejected because it seemed too close to the biblical flood and scientists invented all sorts of explanations to avoid obvious evidence against uniformitarian geology.
Bradley says, “If the evidence changes, I change my mind as do all scientists,” Not all!
—Michael Denton, M.D. and Ph.D. in biochemistry. Author of “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis,” which is credited with having inspired both Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe to investigate scientific problems with Darwinian evolution. His book showed that severe cracks exist in the foundation of Darwinism in areas related to homology, paleontology, and molecular biology.
Although originally drafted more than 30 years ago the core argument that much of the complexity of the biological world cannot be accounted for in terms of cumulative selection has stood the test of time as witnessed by the growing skepticism by many in the scientific community that microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution.
Darwin talked of his “theory” which at the time (as now) had only the assumption that evolution happened as proof. In English, the word dates back to 1592, when it was used to mean a concept or scheme. For laypeople thereafter a theory is simply an idea with the implication that it is just a rough idea, not a firm fact or opinion. I like that scheme definition. In the mid-1600s, scientists started using the term to mean a proven fact. In the context of Darwin’s writings his theory was unproven. By insisting on the strict scientists’ definition, the evolution tale becomes fact. Real cute circular mumbo-jumbo!
Bradley offered no proof of evolution, but may be extrapolating micro-evolution (adaption or change within “kinds” limited by the variations programed into the DNA; possibly his reference to work in his company) to macro-evolution (increasingly complex organisms evolving from simpler organisms). This proven to not be possible, he is left with the evolution debunking challenge, which he did not attempt to answer: Show me the mechanism for adding massive information to DNA necessary to produce a more complex organism from a less complex organism.
Without a satisfactory answer, evolution is just an empty myth. P.S.: Don’t be depressed; Richard Dawkins doesn’t have the answer either.
Goers is a resident of Kalispell.