Evolution Proponent Responds

Jun 02, 05:52 PM

Current Headlines: In response to a letter on evolution vs. creationism, I want to clarify some points from the other side of the fence.

For starters, I do not believe in creationism in any form; my point of views falls to the side of evolution.

My first point of order is the comment on how evolutionary biology tries to make creationism out to be nonsense without any proof of the matter. First it is important to understand what is defined as "nonsense": a language, conduct or idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense. Creation theory tries to invoke shadowy figures that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities to reach its conclusion: the origin of where we came from.

Creationists criticize evolution by saying it can't account for life as we know it or explain the operations of something as complex as the eye, but then offer the only alternative as it being designed by an unidentified intelligence.

To me, this is nonsense, as biology has vindicated Darwin: Researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics.

The origin of life remains a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed these transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. Scientists frequently rely upon indirect evidence today. Although they cannot see subatomic particles, for example, it doesn't mean their conclusions are any less certain.

Another quote from the creationist opinion is that evolution cannot explain the development of new species. This is just incorrect and demonstrates the creationists' fundamental lack of knowledge of evolution and their tendency to simply dismiss evidence thereof. Look up the model called allopatry that was developed by Ernest Mayr of Harvard University for an evolutionary explanation for the development of new species.

Time and time again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can ward off ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed insurmountable: the nature of light, the cause of disease, how the brain works.

If we could get into a time machine and travel a mere 50 years into the future, we would be astounded by the developments of science, all while religion will ultimately be in the same place, serving no useful explanation that holds merit for our origin.

Magic words and imagination alone cannot substitute for the checks and balances of the scientific method.

JAY LAMM Musician and museum employeeDenham Springs

(c) 2007 Advocate; Baton Rouge, La.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.