I was puzzled by a couple of recent letters to the editor (“When science and religion collide,” June 14; “Stepping out of our comfort zone,” June 23). Are we to understand that only proponents of evolution/atheism should speak their minds? Must we accept what evolutionists tell us uncritically?
I do not recall seeing a creationist call evolutionists “pseudo-scientific quacks” in the Daily Record. One local evolution proponent has called creationists by that name. The writer of the June 14 letter once wrote of the “‘magical’ world of religion and ‘reality’ of the everyday world.” This sounds like a dedicated atheist who can neither tolerate nor appreciate other beliefs.
Once again, macroevolution cannot be tested, therefore it is not in the realm of natural science. It is a story told to explain life on Earth by people of a certain religious (atheistic) belief. It ignores laws of physics and [auth] chemistry that tell us nonliving chemicals could never come together to form a living cell. It is a story believed by many people for one of two reasons. Either they believe it because they heard it all their lives and assume it must be true, or they do not want to upset their atheistic beliefs.
Has any evolutionist considered the presence of radioactive Carbon 14 (which should be gone by 250,000 years) in coal deposits and said, “Perhaps this coal isn’t really millions of years old.” Has an evolutionist considered the soft tissue and blood still in a tyrannosaur bone and said, “Maybe we should rethink the assumption that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.” Does an evolutionist ever look at the complexity of a cell and say, “Perhaps random forces cannot account for the complexity of life?” Their “mythology” insists that evolution and millions of years are sacred fact. They must ignore any evidence that threatens such dogma.
I have not seen anyone answer my challenge to tell what ordering mechanism could bring living cells from nonliving chemicals. Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore and saying, “Look what random forces of wind and erosion produced. We must never accept a simplistic explanation that it was designed.” Any living cell is far more complex than anything man produced.
We should ask evolutionists to examine their arguments with the “critical thinking” questions proposed in the letter of June 14. I will relate some of them.
“Does the evidence run counter to what I already believe? Does the evidence support what I already believe? Am I ignoring evidence that I don’t like? Am I denigrating evidence which makes me feel uncomfortable? Am I giving less credence to more solid evidence because it makes me feel good? Where am I getting this evidence?”
As for circular reasoning, how do evolutionists date a fossil? They look at the layer of strata in which it was found. So how do we know the age of the strata layer? We tell by the fossils found in it. This is circular reasoning, and it has at its core a “creation myth” of the atheist/evolutionary faith system that macroevolution is a fact that must never be questioned.
You might like to hear this quote from Stephen J. Gould, a dedicated evolutionist. “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
It seems to me that evolutionists are the most close-minded people of all.
Russell A. Scott