Darwin Vital for Cutting Edge Science? Absolute Nonsense! (15 June 2002)


Dear Editor

As a creationist engineer with eight years of experience operating and designing highly sophisticated petrochemical plants, I reject the assertion that Darwin in schools is vital for South Africa to keep up with cutting edge science.

The theory of evolution assumes that, given enough time, order will arise spontaneously. Cutting-edge science requires intelligence, insight, ingenuity and hard work. Engineers know that useful things do not develop by themselves, and things left to themselves generally get worse and worse. The second law of thermodynamics expresses this principle scientifically as "entropy". Not a single experiment has ever demonstrated that the second law of thermodynamics is not universally applicable.

Engineers are not ashamed to look to the Ultimate Designer for ideas. Kevlar production gets inspiration from a humble spider. Despite DuPont's numerous, highly qualified, hard working chemists, spider silk is still stronger, more elastic and made under milder conditions than Kevlar. Designing an X-ray telescope presents unique challenges, and to meet these challenges the "Lobster Eye" X-ray telescope was copied (you guessed it) from lobster eyes.

Postmodern relativism, which insists that there are no absolute answers and that all paths lead to the same destination, is patently incompatible with scientific progress. Why try to find the truth if there is none? Scientists know from hard experience that there must be absolute answers and that the vast majority of paths do not lead to the desired destination. Evolutionist "scientists" are inconsistent when they apply the first and second laws of thermodynamics to their experiments, since neither of these (otherwise universal) thermodynamic laws are compatible with their model of origins.

It is interesting to note that "natural selection" as applied to consumer goods has decimated customer choice, rather than giving rise to variety. Instead of vehicle propulsion systems being able to use a variety of energy sources (solar, hydrogen, battery, methane, wind etc.), the first sources utilised (petrol and diesel) completely dominate the market. In addition, development of the rotary motor (a concept with interesting potential) is uneconomical because of the market dominance and technological maturity of piston powered motors. Is the recent extinction of many species not perhaps also a result of natural selection letting a single organism dominate the ecosystem?

I would like to challenge the Argus to increase its coverage of real science, to the real benefit of its readers. Over the years, the Argus has carried plenty of pro-evolutionary articles - why not open up the debate? On investigation, you may be amazed to find that creationists have a credible case.

Yours faithfully

Jeanine McGill

Christian Action P.O.Box 23632 Claremont 7735 Cape Town South Africa info@christianaction.org.za - 021-689-4481 - www.christianaction.org.za
Our website is protected by DMC Firewall!