"We Now Know That Evolution is Vindicated"??



M y local newspaper is the 'South Wales Echo.' It always has a liberal stance, at least since the 1960s, and is very left-of-centre politically. In my experience, this newspaper treats Christianity and it's claims with some disdain. It occasionally allows Christians to make comments but only suffers those comments in an unsubtle tongue-in-cheek fashion.

I recently replied to a very anti-Christian letter which had appeared on the paper's 'postbag' page. I understand that I am not able to legally present the letter which I responded to, but it was the usual sort of arrogance extolling evolution and ridiculing Christianity. It also ridiculed another reader's letter which pointed out that Genesis 10 ('the table of nations' chapter), has never been disproven.
Here is my response:

I was very interested to read Mr Garnett's letter which was entitled, "The Bible - A Scientific View." In his letter, Mr Garnett presents the old, now somewhat hackneyed view that science and evolution have answered all the questions about life therefore rendering Christianity virtually meaningless. Of course, this is completely absurd as even many scientists will agree. His letter attacks a view presented by another of your correspondents on the reliability of Genesis 10. I myself have researched this matter and that chapter is indeed utterly reliable and has never been disproven. However, I would say that the first few chapters of Genesis, those which describe creation, are all about the spiritual meaning of life, and the account, for me as a Christian, is utterly valid and proven every single day; those chapters are about ultimate truth, yet 'scientific' would probably not be the word to use, because the purpose is clearly not 'scientific' as that expression now tends to be used. Having said that, where the Bible touches on scientific points, it has never been shown to be in error. For instance, while many once believed in a flat earth, Christians who knew their Bibles never did so because of Isaiah 40:22 which describes God as one who, "sits enthroned above the circle of the earth."

In his allusions to evolution, Mr Garnett appears to think in line with a certain populist view which believes that evolution cannot be challenged. It is amazing how widespread this completely erroneous view is. In fact, evolution has been, and considers to be successfully challenged even though the general public are often completely unaware of this. The original Darwinism is, in fact, long since a dead duck, the only question being whether Neo-Darwinism can continue to be held much longer in the face of an increasing challenge from such people as the brilliant molecular biologist, Michael Behe. Behe and the 'Intelligent Design Movement' have demonstrated that the human cell is not just a primitive blob of gunk as Darwin once thought, but rather, it is a miniature factory of the most amazing complexity. That factory is an 'all or nothing' system, that is, unless everything were present, nothing could work! Darwin could not possibly have known this. Obviously, the principle that it all "gradually evolved" is therefore placed under great stress. The 'Intelligent Design' movement, by the way, is separate and distinct from creationism, some of it's supporters are believers, but others are not. The movement does challenge the assumptions within evolutionary theory, believing that the design aspect of the universe needs much more careful consideration than evolutionary theory has usually afforded it.

What is often called "evolution" can be divided into two areas: 1. Macro-evolution and 2. Micro-evolution. The latter is what we observe all around us, including natural selection and variations in kinds, often according to variations in terrain or climate. Genesis, by the way, completely allows for this. Micro-evolution does not allow a break from 'kinds' - where they occur, sterility, or other problems immediately enter. This, again, is in full accordance with Genesis. Some observance and understanding of 'natural selection' goes back all the way to Aristotle and to the ancient hindus before Edward Blyth, a Christian, more carefully outlined it in the 19th century. The point is: this was understood before Darwin.
'Macro-evolution,' however, is the grand naturalistic theory that all kinds of life are related and that we all emerged from some primitive slime countless millions, or billions, of years ago. According to this idea, or theory, you and I are related - not only to apes - but to bananas, carrots, iguanas and birds of prey! Darwin believed that the fossil record would corroborate this belief within a few years of his death. Well, as we all know by now (and as even evolutionists will usually admit), that has never happened. The fossil record does not support gradual transitions of life at all but presents us with the Cambrian explosion in which everything appears together. Various theories have been produced about why this is, including 'punctuated equilibrium' but the fact remains that what is actually dug up from the ground supports divine creation - not Darwin's theory. Again, most evolutionary scientists will frankly admit this, often saying things like, "It is a problem, and we simply need to do more work." Yet the populist view persists that evolution has answered all the questions about the origins of life. It has not - neither is it capable of doing so.

I will close this letter with two quotes about evolution from scientists:

“…It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that’s all we know about it…about eighteen months ago…I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in London, during a presentation on 5 November 1981, at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ,1985, p. 306).

Robin A. Brace, B.D.

I have no idea if my local newspaper published this letter since we only buy it once a week, and not every week, while it is printed six days a week, but knowing their pro-liberal, anti-supernaturalist and anti-Christian general approach it seems unlikely. If they published at all, it would have been a severely edited version which would have totally distorted the letter's intent, this being their usual practice towards viewpoints which the editorial leadership do not support. Most letters supporting Christianity receive short shrift and very hard editing if they get published at all. They did publish a letter of mine a number of years ago, it was pretty much unrecognisable from what I had written. A number of years ago I was in touch with their computer guro and we built up a good and friendly understanding. One day he told me that this paper were going to publish a list of outstanding websites which originate in our local area. He told me, "Your site will be on the list!" As soon as he said that, I knew that the editors would never allow an evangelical Christian website to appear on such a list but I did not say anything. About a month later the list duly appeared. As I recall (the details are now somewhat hazy), ten websites were to be listed and ours would we one of them. Sure enough, the list was only nine and our Christian site had been dropped. I had been confident that the liberal, leftist editors would not list any website which took the Holy Bible seriously and I proved to be correct. I continued to have friendly contact with my friend in their employ, but never mentioned anything about this at all, realising he was probably feeling a little embarrassed that the editors had rejected his suggestion.
Robin A. Brace, October 8th, 2009.