Science of creation

May 22, 2017 by

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Burton Yost (Letters & Comments, April 24) appears to suggest the biblical creation narrative is not supported by science and therefore we must validate its truth elsewhere. He also suggests evolutionary theory is supported by science. This is not the case. Science supports the creation narrative. Due to the utter lack of scientific evidence for evolutionary theory, we should no longer give credence to it.

Biologist Michael J. Denton, in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1984) and Nature’s Destiny (1998), has been instrumental in showing that “specified complexity” is evidence of design and therefore of a Designer/Creator. This conclusion is not coming from theologians but from scientists, many of them not initially theists or deists. Denton states that we should separate evolutionary theory into microevolution and macroevolution. Micro­evolution focuses on how life forms adapt to maximize their survivability. This was documented before Darwin. Macro­evolution, which focuses on origins, has no evidence that natural materials and forces generated the first living organism and gave direction to the development of life forms. Not only are evolutionists wrong about an evolutionary origin of living organisms, they are even less able to deal with the programming of structures such as DNA, genes and neural systems.

Although there is no reason to view evolution as a scientifically grounded view of the origin of life, we should draw attention to it in our educational curricula, teaching both the arguments for it and the substantial data undermining those arguments.

George G. Janzen
Venice, Fla.


Comments Policy

Mennonite World Review invites readers’ comments on articles. To promote constructive dialogue, editors select the comments that appear, just as we do with letters to the editor in print. These decisions are final. Writers must sign their first and last names; anonymous comments are not accepted. Comments do not appear until approved and are posted during business hours. Comments may be reproduced in print, and may be edited if selected for print.

  • Wilbur H. Entz

    It is quite hard for me to add anything substantial to this great letter since it is so well written. It is my hope and prayer that all MWR readers would read it and believe it!

  • Steven Stubble

    Thank you Mr Janzen for broaching this very taboo topic! That the foundations of scientific naturalism are crumbling is a fact being acknowleged even by atheists (see e.g. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Thomas Nagel 2012.) How much more so should Christian educators be letting go of the scientistic world view, whose explanatory power has failed on so many levels?

About Me

advertisement