email - August 2004

Larry’s Curiosity

Larry sent us this email, filled with grammatical errors and misspelled words. We have inserted missing punctuation in the hopes that it will make more sense to you.

Subject: Curious
From: Larry
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:55:35 -0400

Well as a past firm believer in evolution, I see that once again evolution is proven to be as useless to believe in as religion itself explains the beginning of life. I do not look to religion to explain our beginnings[.] I believe in science, but I am disappointed to find out science itself as you state in your site can not explain the beginning, but my question is why[?]. I am curious to know your opinion. How do you explain the fossils[?] I don't care about the timeline at this point, just the fact that they exist proves some of the science is true. It has been proven [sic] that present day Homo sapians [sic] DNA differs less than 5% than that of chimpanzies [sic]. You can not [sic] deny that of all the species of animals, plants, etc. that exist on this earth simply did not came all at once. How do you explain these facts[?] and if you believe earth is truely [sic] younger than what scientists have stated[,] then how old do you believe it is[?] and what do you base this opinion on[?]. Notice I am cautious and purposely use the word opinion it may get monotenous [sic], but obviously if science has yet to prove what we seek to know then we are only left to hypothosize [sic] and form opinions on the facts in which we know are true. You are quick to shoot down evolution but are slow to explain another explaination [sic] of how different species could have been created. I have only looked so far into this subject I lack the time to spend looking through books and countless sites, but what I know so far leads me to still believe that evolution in a broader picture is still possible, but yet unproveable. You must always keep in mind many of Einsteins [sic] theory's [sic] were not able to be proven until years later, but through that time it was discovered that those theories could eventually be proven. In conclusion I respect your opinions as you respect mine, but presently you have not made any better of an arguement [sic] to me as any better then mine to yours. Hopefully humanity will one day get the truth, but until that occures [sic] my opinions are not fickle, and will not be rechanted [sic].

This was a “shotgun” email, with lots of little pellets in it. Let’s look at a few of Larry’s statements.

… science itself as you state in your site can not explain the beginning, but my question is why[?].

Science involves experimentation and observation of processes. Nobody observed the beginning, and the creation experiment has never been repeated. Therefore, the origin of life remains in the province of philosophy, not science.

How do you explain the fossils[?] I don't care about the timeline at this point, just the fact that they exist proves some of the science is true.

Fossils are easily explained. Things that were once alive were buried in rock and/or dirt. As the organic material in those buried things decayed, it was replaced by inorganic material (minerals).

The disturbing part of Larry’s statement is implied in the phrase, “just the fact that they exist proves some of the science is true.” What does he mean by that? Some evolutionists (Eugenie Scott, for example) believe that everyone who rejects the theory of evolution is “anti-science.” We don’t reject science. We only reject the unscientific theory of evolution.

It has been proven [sic] that present day Homo sapians [sic] DNA differs less than 5% than that of chimpanzies [sic].

We’ve dealt with the similarity of human and chimp DNA before, especially in the 98% Chimp essay in the January, 2003, newsletter. Briefly, the amount of similarity depends entirely on what part of the DNA you look at. Furthermore, similarity argues just as strongly for creation as it does for evolution, so DNA similarity is irrelevant. DNA differences, however, argue more strongly for creation than evolution. There are many DNA differences that are surprising to evolutionists.

You can not deny that of all the species of animals, plants, etc. that exist on this earth simply did not came all at once.

The double negatives make it hard to figure out exactly what Larry is trying to say. Evolutionists and Biblical creationists agree that biological species did not appear on Earth at exactly the same time. (They disagree upon the time interval between their appearances, however.) We haven’t seen anything from the Intelligent Design community that insists on simultaneous creation, either.

You must always keep in mind many of Einsteins [sic] theory's [sic] were not able to be proven until years later ...

Whether or not Einstein’s theories have been proved, and how long it takes to prove a particular theory, have nothing to do with whether the theory of evolution is correct or not. Larry is simply repeating the familiar rhetoric that evolutionists typically use to try to cloud the issue. Evolutionists will, depending upon the situation, either emphatically state that evolution is a “fact, not a theory”, or will argue that even unproved theories are true.

We would love to argue that since Darwin’s theory has been around longer than Einstein’s theories, and Darwin’s theory still hasn’t been proved even though Einstein’s have, therefore Darwin’s theory has failed the test of time. We don’t make that argument because we know that’s a bogus argument. The time it takes to prove one theory cannot be used as a yardstick to determine how long scientists have for proving another theory before declaring it to be false.

The theory of evolution is not false because it has taken too long to prove it. The theory of evolution is false because it is inconsistent with scientific knowledge. The more scientists learn, the more we understand why life cannot form naturally and spontaneously. The more we learn about DNA, the more we realize that the assumption that similar classes of animals came from a common ancestor is wrong.

The theory of evolution is failing the test of time not simply because time passes without proof. It fails the test of time because as time goes by more evidence against evolution is discovered.

If there were no religious implications to the theory of evolution, it would have been rejected on scientific grounds long ago. The religious nature of the theory of evolution, however, has protected it from honest scientific discussion in public schools.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution
Home Page
Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index