The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 9 of 20)

4. Creationists divide evolution into micro and macro. Micro evolution is nothing more than what farmers have practiced for millennia and call selective breeding. Darwin's great contribution to knowledge was simply that selective breeding can happen in nature. He then proposed that selective breeding can change one animal into a completely different one, which we call macro-evolution. Almost all of the evidence for the theory of evolution comes from micro-evolution, which creationists have no problem with. We disagree that these micro changes can result in macro changes. Evolutionists argue that there is no reason to divide evolution into micro and macro; that the process is seamless. But that just begs the question, where is your evidence that the process is seamless? The fossil evidence for macro-evolution is so sparse that evolutionists spend most of their time explaining why they have so little evidence. But a truly scientific theory should be based on evidence, not excuses.

In fact, we argue that if macro-evolution were true, we should not only find millions of transitional fossils, but we should be able to visit a wild life preserve and see creatures in all stages of transition.

5. There are a lot of problems with evolution's clocks. For example, scientists have shown that the potassium-argon method will date rocks newly minted from a volcanic eruption as being millions of years old, when in fact they are just a few months old. The method fails because of the assumption that no argon appears naturally on the planet. When corrected, it provides accurate dates, but gives an age for the earth of less than 100,000 years.

The uranium-led method gives ages of many millions of years for the earth, except when you examine the helium formed in the process of decay; it shows an age for the earth of less than 100,000 years.

When paleontologists attempt to date a rock formation, they send samples to several different labs. Those labs return widely varying dates, so the paleontologist simply picks the one that agrees with their assumptions.

Many other "clocks" of the age of the earth, such as the amount of dust on the moon, the salt levels in the ocean, and the decay of the magnetic field indicate a very young earth. Creationists have a lot of evidence that the earth is much too young for the process of macro-evolution to have taken place.

I could go on, but whole books have been written by great scientists on these subjects. Your best resource is the Creation Research Institute in California.

p>Evolutionists have countered by telling creationists that if we could come up with an explanation for the origins of live and the universe that didn't involve God, they would consider it. Well here's one: The Universe popped into existence out of nothing fully formed about 10,000 years ago. The only difference between this theory and the theory of evolution is the age and state of the universe at formation. It's just as scientific as the theory of evolution and it fits the evidence much better. After all, shouldn't we base theories on evidence in order to call them scientific? br> -- Roger D. McKinney br> Broken Arrow, Oklahoma /p>

So, according to Jay Homnick, those of us who recognize the fact of evolution are just crazy, then? If we've merely lost our minds, our critical thinking, then I wonder how it is that generations of scientists and archaeologists have discovered an abundance of physical evidence that undeniably proves that evolution has occurred and have used the scientific method (you know, hypothesis, observation and, most importantly, verification) to do so?

I would also have to wonder what the evidence for the support of so-called "intelligent design" is. What does it consist of and where can I see it? I can visit any museum of natural history anywhere in the world and see, firsthand, fossil evidence of the evolution of human beings, as well as many other species. I can read thousands of volumes of scholarly scientific papers on various aspects of evolution. Where are the scientific papers written in support of intelligent design? How was intelligent design verified, or has it been? Where is the evidence of "intelligent design," other than in the minds of those who subscribe to this re-dressed version of "creationism?"

p>I'm a conservative, by the way. We don't march in lockstep on every issue, you know.

topics:
Education, Trade, Mainstream Media, Television, Religion, Global Warming, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, North Korea, Communism, Libertarianism, Energy, Oil