Evolution

Press, 5 December 1989, Page 16

Evolution

n Sir, — Surely if there is a god s (whatever she/he/it may be), 11 what more marvellous thing D could there.be than being able to n begin something which not only e reproduces itself but also ims proves itself as time goes by? s Yes, we arrogant humans can I attempt a playing god; we can lt start things, we can even h “create" self-reproducing robots, I and we can continue, to pontificate about all sorts of subjects, but we have yet to create something which starts as a fusion of atoms, develops, improves, adapts and reproduces. The r "creation” idea is something man thought up because it fits e into the anthropomorphism of •> God. Evolution on the other hand 1 is something “god” thought up. It y will go on, perhaps with us, f perhaps without us, and we can * do nothing about it. Only one 1 thing is absolutely indisputable — J evolution is a super-human J creation. — Yours, etc., 1 PETER J. WICKERT. J November 29, 1989. s Sir,—There is little permanent 1 order in the universe- Unimaginf able wholesale destruction is the i predominant factor over aeons . of time throughout endless space where stars explode destroying planetary systems, contracting into black holes that vacuum galactic material into, a superr dense gravitational vortex. On ' Earth, volcanic eruptions, earth- * quakes; cyclones, tornadoes, > floods and droughts wreak havoc among all forms of defenceless; - life. Viruses and bacteria spread ! disease and lingering ■ among the innocent and, while : 1 two-thirds of Earth’s population?;; ! starve, the Pope harangues such/ unfortunates to breed. No won-£ ' der J. L. Hoare (November 27) I wishes to avoid detailed argu1 ment! If your correspondent wishes to invest in spiritual rehewal, fine, but he must first 1 discard his own petulant . cynicism that consigns evolutionists to the moral trash can aqd I psychiatric wards on his inamod*/ ; est terms and erronous valua-. I tions. I agree with D. L- Stedman ‘ that facts should have relative. qualification. It is this very tact 1 that destroys all hope for biblical 1 creationism.—Yours, etc./ ARTHUR MAY, : November 27, 1989. . ■ Sir, — C. J. Pemberton " (November 28) humorously claims that “neither side has really thought about this issue.” But there are more than two sides! His is not the only alterna- . tive. ; 'to the extreme, dogmatic viewpoints on both sides. Of »cbiirse,- atheistic evolutionists are ; ; very dogmatic macroevolutionists of the most thorough-going sort. They have searched every corner of the universe and not found God, so they can safely say “there is no creator!” However, there are also agnostic eyolutonists, some of-whom are unsure there is a creator, and others who are sure we can never be sure; Other interesting evolutionists exist, as well as a wide variety of creationists. Not all creatiohists are creation scientists of the biblical kind. Many are ordinary nonChristians belief in a creator; some are of other religions. Of course, we extremists do enjoy a good argument, and some atheistic evolutionists do sometimes unfairly caricature - their opponents; something I try not to do; — Yours, etc., JOHN D. CANHHAM. November 30, 1989. Sir,—l suggest that D. H. Karst (November 28) greatly/ underestimates the level of perspicacity of your Canterbury readership. I am sure many of your readers in and outside Canterbury, if they have followed this correspondence closely, will have recognised Mr Karst’s shortcomings where evolution is concerned and will have noticed how, in desperation,, he has re- _ sorted to ridicule and -nonsense s? (Uke “beam chanrfltato whales"). also appreci-

ate the enormous gulf between those who are imbued with the non-dogmatic' spirit of free inquiry and those who, starting presumably with allegedly inviolable premises, feel impelled to reject out of hand wellestablished scientific knowledge which is anathema to them. (It was not by accident that I compared rejection of evolution with denial of Earth's sphericity — anti-evolutionists and flat-ear-thers have much' in common). Stephen Jay Gould pinpoints this dichotomy thus: “In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” — Yours, etc., WARWICK DON, Senior Lecturer in Zoology, University of Otago. , ' November 28, 1989. \ ; \ - Sir,—Although C. J. Petnberton considers evolution .theory “valid”*?‘(November 28ji K ”t|iis seems to require thatnrftural. selection bO. construed assupernatural selection, where only the “accidents" and “appearances” > of natural selection to . speak. Presumably, this is ■ ■■:. he means by,. “fence-standing ” but Ockham’s principle of ontological economy always favoiiis natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations. We are advised "... ‘evolutionists’ are foolish to place total faith - ip natural selection (because). evolution may be man’s description -Of .how God makes the world work.”; It is not clear who these si', (“evolutionists” are, but ifseenfe (Of me that anyone is foolish to \ place total faith in anything especially total- allembracing religions, or. any bl the many putative deities com- ? ’monly believed to “make the 'world work." — Yours, etc., • * DAVID SHANKS. >; -■- - November 29,: 1989. ’