TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Intelligent Design Beats Evolution If People Would Just Think About It

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 3, 2007

Natural Impossibility
It's one thing to throw a tub of letters randomly on the ground and have them spell out some words. It's quite another to have them result in a complete Shakespeare play!
Human DNA has 3 billion pieces of code that were only recently sequenced, which means scientists have only determined the correct order of the pieces of information. Amazingly, the DNA found in most every cell in a human body - trillions and trillions of cells - contains the full assembly instructions for the whole body. The information is packed very tightly, down to the molecular level, at a density of 10 to the 21st power per cubic centimeter. This is equal to one photographic slide having 2.77 million columns on it, and 2.77 million rows, resulting in 7.7 million million tiny rectangles, with the entire contents of the Bible reproduced inside of each rectangle!

These amazingly complex instructions for, in part, things like the human eye, make macro-evolution, or "amoeba-to-man" evolution - as opposed to observable micro-evolution - a statistical impossibility. Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

If Darwin himself admitted that his theory would be "absurd" if such cellular information were brought to light, why would we and the Florida Department of Education try and impose on our Florida children a theory that the original writer admitted was an impossibility?

JON BLUMHAGEN

Orlando

Science Vs. Theory

Shazam! According to a Tribune editor, "evolution is a scientific fact" (Our Opinion, Oct. 26). A theory - a really good one - is now a fact? What's next? Up is down, right is wrong, black is white? The theory of evolution fails nearly all of the processes in the attempt to prove its supposed scientific validity. The scientific practice of observing duplicative experiments that can be measured and evaluated in a controlled environment doesn't exist with evolutionary theory. In environments that couldn't be observed (millions of years of natural history), the fossil record does not support the claims of evolutionary theorists, either.

Evolution should be taught in public schools - as a theory. And let's not get blindsided by the "science vs. religion" canard this editor proposes. This is a "science vs. theory" argument, pure and simple. If religion, or a faith-based tenet, is an element in this discussion, it is this: It takes a lot more faith to believe evolution is fact than religion is science.

STEFFAN F. CRESS

Tampa

No Evidence Of Evolution

So evolution has been proven. That is news to me. Could you publish the proof in your paper? Sure we can create new varieties of animals through controlled breeding, but they are still a dog, monkey or cow. Where has it been shown that an amoeba has changed into a fish or a fish into a monkey or a monkey into a human or whatever? There is no evidence of a species evolving into another species. You are an example of the blind leading the blind.

ROGER C. GARNER

Lithia

Theory Not Fact

Since when was the Theory of Evolution made fact? I understand many things have been found to support this theory, but it hasn't been proven yet.

There are many scientists and other scholars who do not subscribe to this theory. Many believe in a Creator who made all things in the Universe. Until someone can prove this theory as fact, that is all it will be.

VINCE MURPHY

Valrico

Intelligent Designer

Your editorial has many misleading statements, including the explanation that intelligent design simply argues from lack of evidence for evolution. ID also argues positively, from the evidence for causation.

The cause and effect structure that's demonstrated daily throughout the earth shows a consistent pattern: That specified complexity comes into existence intentionally.

Certain arrangements of matter and their interconnected nature and function cannot be accounted for by natural processes, and so we infer a prior design event. When we see a sand castle or tree fort, our minds immediately recognize the need for a cause - maybe the mind of a 10-year-old.

Why is it, then, that we attempt to explain away systems infinitely more complex, such as our own bodies, without that same cause and effect inference?

Can't scientists bring themselves to allow that perhaps our amazing world points to a designer? We're not asking them to be theologians, just humble and honest.

GARY RIPPLE

St. Petersburg

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT