Letter to a Radio Station
Dear Sir,
First of all I would like to thank you and National Radio
for airing a 'Science' program. I think there is a terrible shortage of this
type of program, (TV as well), and along with this shortage there is a certain
irony, considering how important Science (and technology) is to all of us.
I also thank you for way you have endeavoured
to reduce technical and difficult matters down to layman's terms. This helps to
bridge the gap between the qualified specialists and the unqualified public.
Now, the matter which I would like to refer to was aired on
Saturday 23rd Jan. being the observation by a man interested in the evolution
of birds. It was said that the different species were the result of "an
apparent bursting forth of life" and a little later it was stated that
"evolution took a sudden unexplained jump". These comments
were made because when the fossil evidence is examined there is, according to
some scientists, a layer of rock in which zero fossils are found, and then, in
the layers above it, a super-abundance of different life-forms. These layers
are labelled Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian (Ordovician,
Silurian - first plants, Devonian - insects, sharks, fish, etc)
In the program, it was also stated that life began as a
simple, one-celled organism, which gradually changed until it was more complex.
With this increasing complexity, the multi-celled organism began to diversify,
until it produced all the life-forms we have today.
Right through my teenage years I was a strong evolutionist.
I held the basic tenets of evolution firmly, and even
drew diagrams and taught other children in my class at highschool
with the science teacher's permission.
However, I was challenged by the way good science works to
re-examine what I believed. One thing which good science expects is accurate observation.
When it comes to evolution there is no observational evidence. We have the
fossils, but they are lacking in transitional forms. We have millions of
life-forms all around us but none of them have been observed to change from one
species into another. Even 'forced' mutation, as with the fruit-fly, every mutation
was a backward step for the fly, not a progressive one, in which the fly was
more viable ('fitter').
We have various dating methods, but they are all dependent
on the assumption that whatever we want to date must already be very old. Our
measuring equipment has to be adjusted to suit the assumption,
otherwise it will not give us the result we expect.
We have the 'appearance' of things, but we have no proof
that the laws of Nature have always operated in the way they presently operate.
We assume that light has always travelled at a
certain speed. We assume that the earth is old. We assume that the planets
formed from a spinning disk of dust. No-one has ever observed any of these
things.
But coming back to the '
A fossil, as I understand it, is an organism (or object)
which has been enveloped and sealed under a sedimentary deposit, i.e. sand,
silt, shingle, soil. The organism must be sealed very quickly, before
normal decomposition can occur. In some fossils just the bones remain, but in
others even the texture of the feathers, skin or scales can be seen.
A fossil must be formed very quickly. This is an extremely
important fact. I mention it twice because if the process was not extremely
rapid, there would be virtually no fossils extant today.
A fish, when it dies, usually floats on the surface, and is
attacked by various scavengers. What is left, if anything,
sinks to the bottom and may be scavenged yet again. A small amount of silt may
lie on the scattered remains. Bacterial attack will also contribute to the
process of disintegration.
Even in a sterile, low-oxygen environment, the flesh rapidly
becomes soggy and falls apart, leaving no trace of the original structures.
In the world there are fossil beds of beautifully preserved
fish. Billions of them. The silent testimony of the
billions of well-preserved fossil fish around the world is, by the most obvious
common sense, evidence of rapid burial, and rapid hardening of the encasing
sediment.
Evolutionary assumptions claim that such fossils were formed
slowly, over a vast period of time, but the evidence points the other way.
Now, returning to the original point, where the speaker on
your program said that the different species he was studying were the result of
"an apparent bursting forth of life" with the explanation that
"evolution took a sudden unexplained jump" - these comments
were made because of observations of the fossil evidence. Because the fossil
evidence showed the sudden appearance of a wide variety of complex organisms,
it was concluded that these organisms had come out of a sudden accelerated
burst of evolutionary development.
Let me put to you another possible explanation.
The animals found in the fossil record were all alive and
well, but they were suddenly buried by water-carrying sediment. Their remains,
found in the fossil beds today, are evidence that they were alive
one moment, and dead the next. They did not have time to decompose. In their
countless billions, creatures in every part of the globe were suddenly buried
by water and sediment. This catastrophic event produced the fossils, and the
present-day landforms.
I have put forward, in the above, a viable explanation for
the presence of fossils, but I have not yet touched on the matter of the
origin of life. Of course, in this area, we are all free to have our own
opinions, but Science is making the possibility of life just 'evolving' out of
warm water rich in minerals increasing difficult to accept.
For example, the complexity of a
'simple cell'.
The complexity within a single living cell is mind-blowing. There are so many
parts to a living cell, all of which interact, all of which depend on each
other for their survival, all of which are interdependent . . . the complexity
of a living cell is similar to the complexity of an entire city such as New
York. It stretches credibility to say that all this could have arisen by chance.
Secondly, thanks to the science of genetics, begun
with Mendel and his pea plants, we know that within a species, only the
characteristics within that species' genes can be passed on. It cannot produce
any new characteristics because it does not have the 'machinery' to do that. A
complete genome is incapable of producing enough new information to produce a
different species (a different genome). There is plenty of variety within a
species - for example the dog family - but dogs cannot become something which
is not a dog. Mutations produce sterility or non-viability, and any tampering
by Man with the genetic make-up of a species has, to date, completely failed to
produce a new species.
It has sometimes been proposed that in humans, genetic
mutations are occurring, but the only obvious ones are those which cause sickle
cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, thalassemia,
phenylketonuria and others. These alterations in the
genes are not beneficial, and could hardly be called progress.
The nature of matter itself is interesting in this context.
Matter left to itself has never been observed to give
rise to an information-storage unit - the living cell. It is easy to postulate
some near-miraculous event deep in the past, when no-one was present to observe
anything. All controlled laboratory attempts to produce anything remotely
resembling a living system have failed absolutely. Some amino acids were once
made, but they were all of the wrong sort - left or
right-handed. Life cannot exist where a diversity of handedness exists.
Besides, a living cell is far more than a collection of molecules brought
together in an organised way. A cell must not only
'feed', 'breath' and 'move', but also produce a copy of itself on a regular
basis, 'defend' itself, and a wide range of other things. Matter, left to itself, has no such properties, nor does it ever show any
'interest' in moving in this direction.
The law of entropy - which says that everything in
the universe is 'winding down', losing energy, falling apart, etc - is another
interesting factor here, because when we observe present-day life, we see a
high level of organisation. This contradicts what we
know about the nature of the universe, i.e. that it is running down. The second
law of thermodynamics also shows us that the normal course in Nature is to
move from complex to less complex. Taken
together these two laws mean that our world must have been, at some stage in
the past, more powerful, more complex, and more organised.
However, when we listen to the evolutionary point of view,
we are told that our world (in total contradiction to the observed nature of
things) was less powerful and less organised, and
then, without any explanation as to how it happened, everything went in
reverse. Simple became more complex, and random events suddenly became more organised.
Now in the case of a video tape, when you make a copy of it,
your copy is not quite as good as the original. If you continue to make copies
of each copy, you end up with a video which is almost unplayable. The observed
present-day nature of things is similar to this. As each successive generation
is produced, we see a decrease in the total amount of information, as it is
copied over and over. If one works backwards we come, logically, to a time when
all life was at its most complex. This point
contradicts the evolutionary view totally.
With respect to your program, it is hardly a surprise to
hear an almost exclusively evolution-based point of view, because that is the
prevailing view at present, but the above may have proved that Science is by no
means settled in one camp. There are scientists who hold that evolutionary
theory is lacking in evidence, and in logic. These same scientists, many of
whom are not even Christians, strongly believe that the same evidence which
evolutionists hold up is a strong indicator for completely different
conclusions.
I would like to close with two quotes,
One is from Dr, Collin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist
at the
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form
gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not
part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about
experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They
may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its
predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will
undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."
Yours sincerely,
................................................................................................................................
To which Allan Coukell of Radio Nz Ltd. on 27th Jan. 1999 wrote :
"Dear Mr. Gunther, thank you for your recent letter (24
Jan) regarding a
In your letter you raise a number of interesting points.
However, as you also state in your letter, these points do not reflect the
prevailing views of most scientists. I'm sure you understand that a science programme such as
"I hope that a difference of opinion on one issue will
not prevent you from continuing to listen to
................................................................................................................................
AND HERE’S MY REPLY
Dear Allan,
thank you for acknowledging my letter. I
was disappointed to see that you made no comment about any of the scientific
evidence I presented to you.
As you said, "a programme such as
Please remember that it was "mainstream" science
which said that if a train travelled at over 30mph
the passengers would suffocate. It was also "mainstream" science
which denied the presence of microbes in hospitals. "Mainstream"
scientists have predicted many things in total disregard of the evidence, or
even common sense.
I draw your attention to your use of the word
"mainstream". Mainstream means the "prevailing current or
direction of activity or influence". I think you are out of touch with
mainstream scientific discourse - I suggest that you read '
And please note that it was "mainstream" scientist
Ernst Haeckel (and his contemporaries) who vigorously
expounded the theory of "embryonic recapitulation), that is, the theory
that says that before birth the human embryo goes through evolutionary stages.
But Haeckel had no evidence, so he
'manufactured' it, by deliberately falsifying his illustrations. Most informed
scientists over the last 70 years have realised that
the recapitulation theory is false - and it has been recently pointed out in
'Science' and "New Scientist' - both respected 'mainstream' science
journals.
You must not dismiss these facts. They call out from
"mainstream" scientific discourse. They are relevant.
I would now like to draw your attention to the subject of
evolution again, illuminating it exclusively with quotes from evolutionists.
The main thrust of the theory of evolution maintains that
all life is in flux. Organisms are, it says, changing from one form to another,
in a generally upward direction - that is, from simple to complex. (I pointed
out in my first letter that this is in total contradiction to the observed laws
of Nature), but if evolution is to occurring, this must be happening.
The fossil record, it is said, contains all the evidence we
need to see the transitions from one organism to another. But is this really so?
Primitive to modern plants?
Everett C. Olson says, in 'The Evolution of Life' -
"Supposedly somewhere within the group called algae lay the sources of the
higher plants, the vascular groups. Whatever these ancestors may have been,
they seem to have been irrevocably lost in the vastness of time."
Prof. E.J.H.Corner says, in 'Evolution
in Contemporary Botanical Thought' - " . . . I
still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation."
Single cells to invertebrates?
Niles Eldredge, in '
Richard Leakey, in "The Illustrated Origin of Species'
says - " . . . extensive searches by palaeontologists have failed to reveal the Precambrian
strata rich in fossils of multicellular animals (the
ancestors of many Cambrian animals) which
Invertebrates to fish?
F.D.Ommanney, in 'The Fishes'(Time nature
Library) says - "How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of
development it went through to give rise eventually to truly fish-like
creatures we do not know."
J.R.Norman, in 'A History of Fishes' says -
"The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of
the fishes . . ."
Fish to amphibians?
Gordon Rattray Taylor, in 'The
Great Evolution Mystery' says - " . . . there are
no intermediate forms between limbed and finned creatures in the fossil
collections of the world."
Kraig Adler, in Encyclopaedia
of Reptiles and Amphibians' says - "Although this transition (from fish to
amphibian) doubtless occurred over a period of millions of years, there is no
known fossil record of these stages."
Amphibians to reptiles?
Robert L. Carrol, in 'Problems of
the Origin of Reptiles' says - "Unfortunately not a single specimen of an
appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true
reptiles."
Angus d'A Bellairs,
in 'Encyclopaedia of Reptiles and Amphibians' says -
"The reptiles arose from amphibians of some kind, but the details of their
early history are not clearly understood and current ideas about them are in a
state of flux."
Reptiles to birds?
W.E.Swinton, in 'Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds' (Vol.1, page 1) says - "The origin of birds is
largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages
through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."
J.Alan Feduccia,
in 'The Age of Birds' says - "Feathers are unique to birds, and no known
structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified."
Reptiles to mammals?
Roger Lewin, in 'Bones of Mammals'
Ancestors Fleshed Out' says - "The transition to the first mammal, which
probably happened in just one or, at the most, two lineages, is still an
enigma."
David Attenborough, in 'Life on Earth: A Natural History'
(Readers Digest/Collins, page23) says - "Nor is there any fossil evidence
of any consequence about their (the echidna and platypus) ancestors. So we have
virtually nothing to help us link these creatures to any group of fossil
reptiles."
Sea mammals to land mammals?
L. Harrison Matthews, in 'The natural History of the Whale'
says - ". . .we have no certain knowledge of their origin (the cetaceans),
for the earliest-known fossils from the Eocene are already unmistakably whales,
and we can only guess at their evolutionary history by inference."
Alfred Sherwood Romer, in
'Vertebrate Palaeontology' says - "We are
ignorant of their terrestrial forebears (cetaceans and sirenians)
and cannot be sure of their place of origin."
Non-flying mammals to bats?
John E. Hill and James D. Smith, in 'Bats: A Natural
History' say - ". . .all fossil bats, even the
oldest, and clearly fully developed bats and so they shed little light on the
transition from their terrestrial ancestor."
Richard E. Leakey, in a footnote in 'The Illustrated Origin
of Species' says - "Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of
animals ancestral to the bats."
Apes to human beings?
Lyall Watson, in 'The Water People',
Science Digest vol. 90, May 1982, page 44 says - "Modern apes, for
instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil
record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making,
big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally
mysterious matter."
Robert B. Eckhardt, in 'Population
Genetics and Human Origins' (Scientific American, vol. 226(1), Jan. 1972, page
94 says - "Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there
one whose morphology marks it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of
genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be no."
One more quote which I would like you to read is from
Malcolm Muggeridge - world famous journalist and
philosopher - from one of the Pascal lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada : "I myself am convinced that the theory
of evolution, especially the extent to which its been applied, will be one of
the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that
so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted
with the credulity that it has."
You see Allan - or at least I hope you can see - the
Which is why I think your programme
is a one-eyed, biased chunk of prejudice, and its high
time you gave a fair and equal time to the hosts of scientists who totally
disagree with its point of view - otherwise the program is not giving your
listeners a fair go!
Yours sincerely,