Dear Editor, Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved. Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible. The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles. The fossil record appears to contain fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. The fact is, there is no solid scientific evidence that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors anymore than there is solid scientific evidence that apes evolved from four-legged (dog-like) mammals. Of course, how animal and plant species would have been able to survive at all while their vital organs (i.e. brain, reproductive organs, immune system, etc.) were still in the process of evolving over supposedly millions of years is still a major problem for evolutionists. Even a partially-evolved eye would be a significant biological hindrance rather than asset for survival! Natural laws are sufficient for explaining how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates but that doesn't mean mere undirected natural laws are sufficient for fully explaining the origin of such order. We also know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from eternity. The existence and complexity of the universe point to a Supreme Designer and Creator! No human being observed, either directly or indirectly, the origin of life and the universe, by either chance or design. Thus, neither position can be scientifically proved. The issue is which position has better scientific support. These are just some brief examples of the varying assumptions, arguments, and interpretations on both sides of the issue. And both sides should be presented to students. That is all that is being asked by the advocates of intelligent design. There are many questions that cannot be fully addressed in the space of this letter. For a more in-depth analysis of the evolution/intelligent design debate addressing various issues (i.e. the origin of life, mutations, comparative anatomy and physiology, vestigial structures, the fossil record, the age of the earth, etc.) please read my essay on the subject at www.religionscience.com. Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Theology/Biology)
*As a religion and science author, I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. Resources from scientists who support intelligent design: www.creationscience.com
www.icr.org
www.ChristianAnswers.Net Scientific Evidence for a Young World: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842 |
