Here is my second letter to the Editor of our local community newspaper,
replying to a Mr Alan Needham who identifies himself as "not a Christian"
and "someone who teaches evolutionary theory to university students".
In it I further develop my criticism of "Neo-Darwinism" that it "simply cannot
know that all mutations that ever occurred in life's history were undirected"
but that "It just assumes they were, as an article of materialistic faith".
Mr Needham's letter is after mine.
Steve
==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
WANNEROO TIMES, June 22-28, 1999 - PAGE 16
Use of words crucial to debate
University evolution teacher Alan Needham (Community, June 15-21)
confirms my point, that for there to be no conflict between "evolution" and
"creation" these words must be used in a different way from their normal
use in mainstream science and Christianity.
Mr Needham employs the usual Darwinist move of defining "creation" so
narrowly it cannot be true and "evolution" so broadly it cannot be false.
Thus "creationism" (which basically means belief in a God who created), is
redefined as "fundamentalist...dogma" and made out to be so shaky it
would be threatened even by "atomic theory."
"Evolution", on the other hand, is redefined by Mr Needham as "the world
changes with time", which is so vague he admits it is "a proposition with
which even creationists must agree."
But if "evolution" is given its real name of "Neo-Darwinism", then it is a
proposition that would be rejected by most members of the public, not
just Christians.
Neo-Darwinism claims that all living things, including humans, are just
byproducts of a vast chain of random genetic errors (mutations), preserved
by a blind, mechanical sorting process (natural selection). As Simpson, one
of Neo-Darwinism's founders, put it: "Man is the result of a purposeless
and materialistic process that did not have him in mind."
But Neo-Darwinism simply cannot know that all mutations that ever occurred
in life's history were undirected. It just assumes they were, as an article of
materialistic faith.
Admit the possibility of a pre-existing Intelligent Designer who could direct
genetic changes towards a goal, and Neo-Darwinism's bubble bursts!
Steve Jones
Warwick
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------(
WANNEROO TIMES, June 15-21, 1999 - PAGE 13
Evolution theory part of mainstream science
I AM not a Christian but feel the need to jump to the defence of Lex
Bastian who is a Christian, and who proposed that there is no conflict
between standard Christian doctrine and evolutionary theory (Community,
May 25-31).
His view was attacked by Robyn Powell and Steve Jones (Community,
June 1-7) who suggested that the theory of evolution; is discredited and
incompatible with Christian faith.
As someone who teaches evolutionary theory to university students, I am
curious about the reasons why fundamentalist Christians feel the need to be
so defensive toward evolution while accepting the truths and the benefits of
so many other areas of scientific understanding.
Evolution is as much a part of mainstream science as atomic theory
quantum physics and DNA technology, all of which threaten creationist
dogma much more than Charles Darwin's ideas ever did.
I suspect that the reason for the creationist focus on evolution is that
Darwin's ideas are more comprehensible to them than are the central ideas
of quantum mechanics.
The central idea of evolution is that the world changes with time, a
proposition with which even creationists must agree.
Darwin's contribution was to suggest a plausible mechanism for change in
plants and animals: The theory of natural selection.
This theory has contributed much to the improvement of important
agricultural products, the development of disease and pest control
measures and our understanding of modern biological processes.
The fact is that science and religion are separate areas of our lives and one
should not feel threatened by the other.
Alan Needham,
Wangara
===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE===================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood
perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3)
no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life
exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." (Provine W., "Evolution: Free
will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998
Darwin Day Keynote Address.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/provine_abstract.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------