Evolution Debate

It seems that Graham Hellier, in the October issue of Life and Work, is hitching his wagon to the circled wagons of the Darwinian establishment, despite the many “evolving” challenges to Darwin’s theory.

Cartoon: Bill McArthur

In spite of his assertions, surely the lack of fossil evidence of transitional forms, cannot so easily be brushed aside.

Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory may founder if such evidence was not forthcoming. On the issue of micro biological machinery, I have to agree with Guy Douglas, that no plausible explanation of how the Darwinian process of change over time could produce such complexity, has been given.

The new and emerging evidence in biological research can be seen as a devastating challenge to Darwin’s theory of macro evolution or universal common ancestry. Darwin based his theory of macro evolution, or his tree of life, on the small scale changes he observed as creatures were fine tuned to adapt to their particular environment. Recent biological research has however indicated that the molecular mutations involved in such transitions, has damaged or broken DNA. While the mutations had a beneficial eflect for the survival of the species, they produced a loss of function in the genome, that could not be recovered. Therefore if Darwin’s theory of macro evolution is based on this process, it raises serious questions as to how a process that invariably has a damaging eflect can produce novel forms of life.

Despite Graham Hellier’s interpretation of Gerd Muller’s admission that the Darwinian process lacks creative power, it must be seen as a devastating blow to the united front previously shown by the Darwinian establishment.

While in the Rev Hellier’s view Darwinism is not a challenge to Christian faith, he must acknowledge the fact that it is being used in our current generation to teach our young people, in schools and universities, that a purely arbitrary process is responsible for all life and that we are the product of unguided biology. Modern research is proving this to be utterly false and as Christians we should do all in our power to expose the inadequacies of the prevailing theory.

I’m interested in the origin of life and have been reading your articles and letters on this topic with interest.

In my younger black and white days I wondered if the Genesis account or Darwin’s Origin of Species was correct. The first words that God speaks in the Bible are “Let there be light” Genesis 1:3 then in verse 16 He seems to create the sun. My science teacher back then said the Genesis account of the origin of life was nonsense because the order of the appearance of light was incorrect. Later I discovered that light photons came into existence only 300,000 years after the Big Bang then a few billion years later our sun was born. The order of Genesis is correct, but of course other Genesis claims do not dovetail with accepted science.

Professor Priest in his article in the July issue seems on the right track in regarding the Genesis account as “poetry and allegory”. It’s visionary. Darwin seems also to be a visionary with his theory of natural selection - revolutionary in its time. But evolutionary theory, like Genesis, didn’t get it all correct - humans didn’t evolve from apes otherwise why didn’t they all evolve? Rather there was a common ancestor as Professor Priest says that split into two species.

I wonder, and this is my point, will Darwin’s account, some time in the future, be regarded on a similar par to the Genesis account?

Visionary but only correct here and there?

Kristine Kerr, Gourock, Inverclyde

This article appears in the November 2020 Issue of Life and Work

Click here to view the article in the magazine.

To view other articles in this issue Click here.

If you would like to view other issues of Life and Work, you can see the full archive here.