Archive for Sunday, September 25, 2005


September 25, 2005


To the editor:

Justin Smitley, on Sept. 23, dismissed evolution on the grounds that "Darwin's theory is still very much without facts," and that evolutionary theory "basically says I can throw parts of a watch into a tornado and have it come out a working, fully together watch." Both his claims are nonsense, rooted in the misinformation that creationists pass off as scholarship.

First, the evidence for evolution is so vast that it takes years to master. One example among millions: In 2001, Gingerich and Zalmout reported the discovery of 47-million-year-old fossils of "walking whales," a species intermediate between land and sea mammals. There's so much more evidence. Raymond Sutera wrote that scientists have collected paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical and chronological evidence about whale evolution.

Second, Mr. Smitley's comment about watches and tornados embodies the naive hopelessness on which intelligent design is built. Science constantly explains what had seemed impossible, for example, how a small lump of plutonium can destroy a city. Step by step, biologists are explaining the how of evolution. In contrast, intelligent designers merely complain that no explanations will ever be found - until they are.

Evolutionary theory is incomplete, just as is the theory of gravitation, it's still unclear how gravity is transmitted. But the evidence for both is overwhelming. Teaching so-called alternatives to evolution in a science class is as silly as jumping off a cliff on the grounds that gravity is only a theory and alternatives exist to breaking your neck.

John Rosen,



craigers 12 years, 8 months ago

His point was that the same odds of the whole world of organisms by chance just happened and the chemical formula and environment were perfect for it to happen are the same as throwing the pieces of a watch into a tornado and have it come out working. When you really look at the odds of the equation for evolution being correct at the very beginning of our existence, you will see that it is nearly impossible that the world just happened. This is why evolution isn't accurate because our beginning is based on something that is not only highly unlikely but impossible for it to ever happen.

craigers 12 years, 8 months ago

Your odds of winning the lottery a hundred times would be better than the chances of elements coming together to form life. No I don't have a source for that comment, but even a scientist should tell you how highly unlikely the evolutionist's creation theory is.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 8 months ago

If I could somehow play the lottery for the 5 billion years of the earth's existence, not winning (at least) 100 times would be extremely unlikely.

Mizpah 12 years, 8 months ago

You seem extremly upset I challenged a belief system that has gaps that size of countries in it. Any how, if you read the article, it wasn't so much a jab at darwinism. It was suggesting both scientific theories should be taught along with criticisms. Why not allow critical material at the least that disclaims evolution? You see I don't like your type, you are very guilty of making sure your beliefs don't go challenged. That concerns me. That's all.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.