Evolution

Press, 29 December 1989, Page 20

Evolution

Sir,—John Reid (December 26) is illogical and quotes me incorrectly. I did not say the complexity of nature proves a creator’s existence. It is quite obvious to open minds that there is much evidence for a tremendously gradual and sometimes inappropriate evolution, but nothing even to suggest creation. The real mystery is existence. He then tries to counter the first cause refutation of God’s existence by defining God as the first cause and then saying that therefore God is the first cause. My hand I define as a horse, and therefore my hand is a horse. Stan Wood (December 15) is also determined to believe in God as the eternal, uncreated, uncaused first cause, having already admitted it “may just as well" be Godj or the world is uncaused if

anything can be. But neither is necessarily true. Let them believe: let others not believe. — Yours, etc., SUSAN TAYLOR. December 27, 1989. Sir,—Perhaps atheistic evolutionists are weak in the sense of wonder. Perhaps as they observe the myriads of natural phenomena they do not feel a sense of awe and reverence and mutter to themselves, “This is marvellous!” Mankind does not know the reasons for hosts of things. Why are the nuclei of atoms always vibrating even at absolute zero? Why do atoms and molecules such as sodium, chlorine, and sodium chloride have their properties? In the big bang theory of the origin of our universe why was the matter there, and why did it explode at the time it did? Why do the fossils of palaeontology support the fact of micro-evolution, but not the fact of macro-evolution? Why are many physical pheno : mena describable in elegant mathematics? To account for the marvellousness and magnificence of our evolving universe, macroscopically and microscopically speaking, many feel that if there were no first cause we would have to invent one. — Yours, etc., STAN WOOD. December 27, 1989. Sir,—Some weeks ago I lost the thread of this discussion — I suspect I’m not alone among your readers. Is there an issue at hand? If so, what is it? There are, of course, many questions which could arise in a debate between evolutionists and creationists, but I suggest that there are only two biggies. First, did God make the world and all its creatures? Such a question is a matter of faith and entirely outside the realm of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove this assertion. End of discussion. Second, should creationism be taught alongside the theory of evolution in school science classes? Every time the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed this question it has ruled that creationism, even when dressed up as “scientific creationism,” is religion, not science. End of discussion. Perhaps it is time for you to exercise your editorial’prerogative to stop all this silliness. — Yours, etc., . MARK S. WELLS. December 26, 1989. [The correspondence on Evolution is closed for the time being. — Editor.]