The editor’s note on the letter to the editor titled Creationism and evolution once again raised the question of what is considered adaptation and what is evolution in the microbe to man sense. Cross breeding and genetic manipulation have never produced a new form (kind) of life. They have produced the appearance of different traits within a kind. These techniques can only work with existing genetic information and cannot produce the addition of new genetic information needed to begin a new form of life. This is an absolute necessity for the theory of evolution to be viable. If the mechanism for the addition of new genetic information is not a basic tenant of evolutionary thinking, it can only be because the mechanism is not yet known. Shouldn’t this mechanism be the very foundation upon which this theory is based? Yet it is MIA. There is actually no foundation upon which to promote this theory! Because of this, I maintain that evidence for evolution is lacking, regardless of what most scientists say.
In addition, the microbe to man theory of evolution violates many of the tested theories and laws within the sciences. Science has never observed an exception to the cell theory or the law of biogenesis, but evolution insists that there must be exceptions to both.
DNA is coded information necessary for the existence of life. Information codes always have an intelligent source, without exception. Evolution must make the illogical claim that this code comes from chance and random processes even though DNA is by far the most compact information storage system known to man. It far exceeds man’s best efforts, showing us that the real Creator is much more intelligent than man. For most scientists this logical conclusion seems so very hard to accept. Shouldn’t the logical conclusions be allowed in the school curriculum?
Editor’s note: First a confession. I got mixed up in my response to Pete’s Tuesday letter. That letter from Pete was actually a response to a letter George Templeton wrote. My bad. Fortunately, Pete’s an amiable and patient guy (how could he not be with that name?) and says he forgives me. Above, you’ll find the letter he actually sent me, lost in the wilds of my e-mail. First, Pete says despite the measurable changes in DNA that result from genetic engineering and cross breeding, no new species have been observed. But that’s a circular semantic argument, since we humans decide when to call something a different species. We could say that Great Danes and miniature poodles are different species if we wanted. But the wild differences in dog lineages prove the mechanisms of evolution just as conclusively as the different species of finches on the Galapagos Islands, which Charles Darwin documented. We have certainly proven the link between changes in the DNA and changes in function and appearance. We have precisely measured the rate of that change and therefore can estimate the time since two species shared an ancestor. Second: the law of biogenesis says living things come only from living things, which seems to hold true in our experience and therefore raises interesting, still unanswered scientific questions about how it all started. However, no matter how life started it has proceeded through mutation and adaptation and evolution. Third: I’m not sure why Pete thinks cell theory contradicts evolution, since the operations of DNA explain everything about how cells operate. Fourth: the claim that only the direct operation of intelligence can create an information code seems circular. Isn’t an ice crystal created with an “information code”? The point remains: students should be encouraged to ask tough questions about any scientific theory. That doesn’t mean science teachers ought to teach creationism, which isn’t a scientific theory.