Letter to the Editor, Farmville Herald, Farmville, VA.

This letter is in response to the two letters in the February 10, Herald favoring the theory of evolution and assaulting the concept of intelligent design put forth by Archer Mosley in an earlier letter.

Let's look at the issue of micro-evolution. Many evolutionists say that micro-evolution within the same type proves that macro-evolution has occurred. Unfortunately for Darwinists, genetic limits seem to be built into the fundamental types. For example, cat breeders try to create new breeds of cats, but they always confront the same genetic limitations. Cats always produce cats. Viruses always produce viruses. Fruit flies always produce more fruit flies. (Please see: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 142.) In summary, micro-evolution always produces variations within a type. Mr. Mosley's example of black and white cows producing black/white spotted cows does fit this definition. A new variation within a type is produced. Addressing this same question of the boundaries of micro and macro-evolution, E.C. Collins writes: "Such wide crosses as the cat with the dog or the jack rabbit have never been obtained." (Elements of Genetics, 313.)

Horticulturists are constantly working to produce roses with new colors and new combinations of patterns of colors. They are working within the framework of micro-evolution. They are producing new variations within a type. However, this operation is completely different from producing a new type from the same type, from producing a lilac from a rose, for instance. Roses produce roses; lilacs produce lilacs. Marsh writes: "...the most that hybridization can do in the matter of change is to give rise to another variety within some already existing kind." If intelligent scientists cannot produce new types from the same type in the laboratory, why should one believe that blind chance could do something that scientists cannot do? (See: Evolution, Creation ,and Science, Marsh, Chapter 9.)

Mr. Mosley's point that evolution has no answer to the question, "Where and how did life begin?" is relevant to the discussion of Darwinism. I suppose that all evolutionists agree that dead animals and plants do not evolve. Therefore, the very basis of the theory of evolution must be built on the reality of living objects. How can one understand the purported process of macro-evolution and ignore the very heart of that theory, macro-change in living things, not dead things. As Mr. Mosley noted, molecular biologist, Dr. Lynn Caporale, sees this connection when she opens her book, Darwin In the Genome, with the "Alice-in-wonderland scientific" assertion that "dust itself edged, in slow motion, over a boundary into life." What is the difference between a dead stick and a live sapling? One difference is that the live sapling has teleonomy in it (information stored within a living thing.) It is a machine that is capturing energy to increase order. A dead stick, however, cannot thrive on the sunshine, water, and nutrients of the soil, but rapidly decays.

What about purported evidence supporting evolution in fossil records? This is what the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, an evolutionist, had to say: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth....a species does not rise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86 (1977.) Henry Gee, chief writer for Nature, writes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story...." (Quoted in Wells Icons of Evolution, 37.) Also, similarity of structure in living things and fossil records may be evidence of a common Designer rather than a common ancestor, as Darwinians hold.

Then there is the question of the second law of thermodynamics. It is well known among the scientific community and laymen as well, that chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. (If you doubt this fact, look in the mirror; are you aging?) Therefore, in the long haul, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill toward disorder, not uphill toward order. Evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial arrangements. However, as scientists have discovered, the second law of thermodynamics reveals the very opposite. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run. (See E.B. Stuart, Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics, (1970, 78.) Unless evolutionists can demonstrate that this Law does not apply to macro-evolution, Darwinism is awash on a sea of confusion and error.

Language change also flies in the face of the theory of development from the simple to the complex. Just as there are physical laws, such as gravity, language change also has laws. One of these laws of language is that the longer the language lives, the more simple it becomes in its grammar and structure. For example, the objective case of the pronoun "whom" is rarely used today except in situations where formal English is required. It is being replaced by the subjective case "who." Consequently, in most situations, the English speaker does not have to decide between the subjective and objective cases, but, rather, tends to use the subjective case for both needs. Also, middle English is more complex grammatically than modern English, and Old English is more complex grammatically than Middle English. If such a law continues back to early man, it would be absurd to have a simple "man-like being" handling a complex language. However, such a law would fit perfectly into the Genesis account where man is created mature, marriageable, and intelligent.

Is evolution a religion? What is religion? One definition of religion is: A belief, founded largely upon faith, that attempts to answer such basic questions as "Where did man come from," "How did he get here," and "Where is he going." Or, one could define religion as: "a system of faith." "Evolution is a system of faith in materialism." (Dr. Donald Scott, Organic Evolution: A Pagan Religion.1.) Faith is the common element in each of these definitions. The famous evolutionist T. Dobzhanksy wrote: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." (American Biology Teacher, V. 35, No. 3, March, 1973.) If one accepts these definitions and Dobzhanksy's statement, macro-evolution is clearly a religion. Therefore, in the public schools of Virginia, the teaching of evolution should have the same restrictions placed upon it that the teachings of Christianity and Judaism have placed upon them.

Did the complex clock (universe and life) come about by chance or design? When the evidence for intelligent design is weighed against the evidence for chance-evolution, intelligent design wins hands-down in the minds of those who are willing to accept the abundance of evidence in real life.

Signed: Fillmer Hevener


 © 2005 Guthrie Memorial Chapel