Monday, June 11, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Evolution Doesn’t Cut It
Your Comments: Summer 2012 | Continuum: Evolution Doesn’t Cut It
It is amazing the numerous problems with the theories of evolution that their scientific proponents gloss over and at the same time refuse to give creationism the time of day because of its supernatural nature [“Evolution of a Scientist,” Spring 2012]. Let me mention just a few.
There is life itself. Evolutionists postulate that billions of years ago conditions were perfect when a sunspot or some other natural phenomena accrued providing the chemicals or energy that started life with a single cell in the sea. Yet deprive a newborn (whatever) of a life-required substance (air) for just a few minutes and no chemical or energy will restore life to a perfectly conditioned creature.
Then there is the fact that a single-cell amoeba has a DNA strand that is more complex than a fleet of 747s. There is no scientific explanation for this complexity. To believe that a lightning strike or some other natural phenomena created it is absurd.
What about the problem of reproduction? There is no scientific explanation for the development of reproduction or the requirement for a male and a female in the reproductive process. How does survival of the fittest explain this?
Then there are the problems with the variety of life (why are there mosquitoes, etc.?), the beauty all around us, the intricacy of so much of life (the eyeball), etc.
In an oversimplification, the total scientific evidence consists of some visible evolution within a species and a few fossils that appear to show a migration from one species to another. To accept paltry evidence and totally dismiss intelligent design is not scientific.
Dick Kenney BS’56
Comment submitted via continuum.utah.edu [see reply from Dr. Alan Rogers in Responses]
It is amazing the numerous problems with the theories of evolution that their scientific proponents gloss over and at the same time refuse to give creationism the time of day because of its supernatural nature [“Evolution of a Scientist,” Spring 2012]. Let me mention just a few.
There is life itself. Evolutionists postulate that billions of years ago conditions were perfect when a sunspot or some other natural phenomena accrued providing the chemicals or energy that started life with a single cell in the sea. Yet deprive a newborn (whatever) of a life-required substance (air) for just a few minutes and no chemical or energy will restore life to a perfectly conditioned creature.
Then there is the fact that a single-cell amoeba has a DNA strand that is more complex than a fleet of 747s. There is no scientific explanation for this complexity. To believe that a lightning strike or some other natural phenomena created it is absurd.
What about the problem of reproduction? There is no scientific explanation for the development of reproduction or the requirement for a male and a female in the reproductive process. How does survival of the fittest explain this?
Then there are the problems with the variety of life (why are there mosquitoes, etc.?), the beauty all around us, the intricacy of so much of life (the eyeball), etc.
In an oversimplification, the total scientific evidence consists of some visible evolution within a species and a few fossils that appear to show a migration from one species to another. To accept paltry evidence and totally dismiss intelligent design is not scientific.
Dick Kenney BS’56
Comment submitted via continuum.utah.edu [see reply from Dr. Alan Rogers in Responses]
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)