The following extended "letter to the editor" appeared today in our local paper. I thought it was pretty good and so decided to share it with readers of this forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues
POINT OF VIEW
LOUIS K. ARMENTROUT
James Wheetley's letter, "Religion has no place in public school science classes" (Voice, March 19), proves only that he, like most evolutionists, is ignorant of and has never read or evaluated intelligent design.
He falsely claims that intelligent design scientists are "trying to impose one's personal faith on a scientific discussion." The truth is intelligent design theory is used daily by scientists in the fields of forensics, archaeology and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, but no one is accusing these scientists of trying to impose their personal faith on a scientific discussion.
Origin science is a search for causes, and people with true scientific knowledge know that everything that comes to be has a cause -- either natural (sometimes called a secondary cause) or intelligent (sometimes called a primary cause). People such as the writer only accept true science when they think it proves their personal theologies, ideologies and philosophies, but when it proves ideas they despise they judge and condemn it.
Wheetley declares, "Science requires that an acceptable theory must either be proven with direct evidence, or at least have strong, logical and reasonable indications that it is likely." If this is true then macroevolution, a faith-based philosophical ideology, should not be considered science because it has never been proven with direct evidence nor does it have strong, logical and reasonable indications that it is likely. The truth is ...
1) Macroevolution has never been observed in the fossil record. Steven Gould, an avid evolution scientist, candidly admitted that the fossil record contains two features that are inconsistent with gradualism (Darwinistic evolution) (A) Stasis -- Most species appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless. And (B) Sudden appearance -- In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed. Both of these scientifically indisputable facts deny macroevolution. Clearly it is a scientific fact that nothing in the fossil record supports macroevolution.
2) Macroevolution has never been observed in the field. What is observed is adaptation within limits -- not molecule to man. There are numerous variations possible within a kind. Evolutionists and creationists all agree on this observable fact of life. It is the leap of faith extrapolation of "molecule to man" macroevolution where these scientists part company. From everything that is observed we clearly see that fish cannot become amphibians, amphibians cannot become reptiles, reptiles cannot become birds and apes cannot become human. Macroevolutionists who claim these kinds of changes are liars?
3) Mutations only scramble the message contained in the genetic code and after years of experimentation on thousands of generations of fruit flies Macroevolutionists found it impossible to create anything but a fruit fly.
4) Selective breeding does not prove macroevolution. It is not evolution. It is intelligent design. Breeders must carefully select and isolate to attain the desirable characteristics they seek. Once introduced back into the wild, things revert back to their natural state. There is an infinite gulf between what is observed (limited variations within a kind) and macroevolution (apes evolving into humans).
It takes intelligent design to create the kind of specified complexity contained in our genetic code. The information contained in our DNA is encyclopedic. It is organized into highly complex specific information. A mindless, accidental process that did not have us in mind could never had created a single simple cell in a trillion billion years. Evolutionists want us to believe that time, chance, mindless processes and non-living matter wrote the encyclopedic amount of information contained even in the simplest living cell and gave it life.
If Wheetley and other evolutionists want to take an infinite leap of faith and believe in the fairytale of macroevolutionism, it is their personal right to do so. But, they should not call it science. And, according to Wheetley's own policy, they should not be allowed to impose upon and indoctrinate students in public school science classes with their faith-based beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues
POINT OF VIEW
LOUIS K. ARMENTROUT
James Wheetley's letter, "Religion has no place in public school science classes" (Voice, March 19), proves only that he, like most evolutionists, is ignorant of and has never read or evaluated intelligent design.
He falsely claims that intelligent design scientists are "trying to impose one's personal faith on a scientific discussion." The truth is intelligent design theory is used daily by scientists in the fields of forensics, archaeology and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, but no one is accusing these scientists of trying to impose their personal faith on a scientific discussion.
Origin science is a search for causes, and people with true scientific knowledge know that everything that comes to be has a cause -- either natural (sometimes called a secondary cause) or intelligent (sometimes called a primary cause). People such as the writer only accept true science when they think it proves their personal theologies, ideologies and philosophies, but when it proves ideas they despise they judge and condemn it.
Wheetley declares, "Science requires that an acceptable theory must either be proven with direct evidence, or at least have strong, logical and reasonable indications that it is likely." If this is true then macroevolution, a faith-based philosophical ideology, should not be considered science because it has never been proven with direct evidence nor does it have strong, logical and reasonable indications that it is likely. The truth is ...
1) Macroevolution has never been observed in the fossil record. Steven Gould, an avid evolution scientist, candidly admitted that the fossil record contains two features that are inconsistent with gradualism (Darwinistic evolution) (A) Stasis -- Most species appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless. And (B) Sudden appearance -- In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed. Both of these scientifically indisputable facts deny macroevolution. Clearly it is a scientific fact that nothing in the fossil record supports macroevolution.
2) Macroevolution has never been observed in the field. What is observed is adaptation within limits -- not molecule to man. There are numerous variations possible within a kind. Evolutionists and creationists all agree on this observable fact of life. It is the leap of faith extrapolation of "molecule to man" macroevolution where these scientists part company. From everything that is observed we clearly see that fish cannot become amphibians, amphibians cannot become reptiles, reptiles cannot become birds and apes cannot become human. Macroevolutionists who claim these kinds of changes are liars?
3) Mutations only scramble the message contained in the genetic code and after years of experimentation on thousands of generations of fruit flies Macroevolutionists found it impossible to create anything but a fruit fly.
4) Selective breeding does not prove macroevolution. It is not evolution. It is intelligent design. Breeders must carefully select and isolate to attain the desirable characteristics they seek. Once introduced back into the wild, things revert back to their natural state. There is an infinite gulf between what is observed (limited variations within a kind) and macroevolution (apes evolving into humans).
It takes intelligent design to create the kind of specified complexity contained in our genetic code. The information contained in our DNA is encyclopedic. It is organized into highly complex specific information. A mindless, accidental process that did not have us in mind could never had created a single simple cell in a trillion billion years. Evolutionists want us to believe that time, chance, mindless processes and non-living matter wrote the encyclopedic amount of information contained even in the simplest living cell and gave it life.
If Wheetley and other evolutionists want to take an infinite leap of faith and believe in the fairytale of macroevolutionism, it is their personal right to do so. But, they should not call it science. And, according to Wheetley's own policy, they should not be allowed to impose upon and indoctrinate students in public school science classes with their faith-based beliefs.
