Retorts

Creationism

Warwick Don [Retorts, Jun] fails to address my questions, as he says he fails to see their relevance to the scientific status of evolution. Incredible. First, if there is no verifiable, observable mechanism, how can evolution be called "science"? Second, without spontaneous generation being documented, why should it be accepted -- especially given the impassable roadblocks in its way? Third, with no verifiable, repeatable way of getting codes and concepts without a mind, why should I bow before the fallacy that because a majority believes it happened, it really happened? I have a verifiable, repeatable way of getting codes and concepts. Warwick and fellow evolutionists do not. Who's more scientific? Forth, I asked for the "bestillustration of evolution". Warwick gave me nothing.

Professor Bernard Howard did address my questions. Unfortunately, for the first he simply referred to authorities and failed to address a mechanism. He was more direct about the non-life to life transition. He said "the answer given by honest scientists is we don't know, but we are looking hard.'" Exactly! "Looking hard" however, while at times commendable, proves nothing. He responded to my comments about the first replicators, "The picture [Mr Maclachlan gave] is a more highly developedorganism than biologists of today imagine." Exactly! What I outlined is what we know is required. What Bernard refers to is the rank imagination of evolutionary biologists of today -- which is no better than those of yesterday.

By pointing to DDT-resistant insects, Bernard, I presume, is giving me his best illustration of evolution. If that's his best, pity help him. For one, natural selection and mutation are as much a part of creationist theory as they are of evolutionary theory -- only they're conservative and degenerative rather than creative as evolutionists maintain. Second, he says the insects "acquired a gene coding". Where did this come from, he asks. The answer given is that probably "insects already possessed an enzyme" which could be subtly changed by mutation. Exactly! Resistance to DDT probably was acquired through mutational damage to already existing genetic information -- though this has nothing to do with the origin of the pre-existing information, which is the issue.

(Alternatively, the resistance could already have been coded for in some individuals. Also, let's not forget the massive informational loss that's occurred through all the non-resistant population being wiped out when exposed to DDT.) All this is exactly what creationists say, so how can it be a knock-me-down illustration of evolution?

I read Richard Dawkins's The Blind Watchmaker shortly after it was published and found lots of speculation but little substance. I look forward to hearing him speak later in the year.

Renton Maclachlan, Porirua