One Letter

from Jared Cormier
to pastorjim@pleaseconvinceme.com
date Fri, Nov 2, 2007 at 8:54 AM
subject Evolution
mailed-by gmail.com

Evolution is NOT about the origins of life, that is abiogenesis. Evolution deals exclusively with life after its origin, whatever that may be. The RNA world hypothesis is probably the best model for abiogenesis thus far, but the jury is still out. So, what EVIDENCE do you have which indicates evolution is not true; if this has not already been addressed by at least one evolutionary biologist (which I doubt), then perhaps your doubts are warranted. I haven't, as yet, seen any evidence which cannot be explained by the Modern Synthesis. If you wish to test this theory scientifically, do so with experimental (published and peer-reviewed) data. Until which time, any conclusion you reach is purely speculation.

Macroevolution is NOT life originating from molecules, it is NOT the origins of life; biologists use the term "macroevolution" to describe the process of speciation from a common ancestor population to two separate species. The problem with this model (I admit, there is one) lies not within the framework but in our definition of "species." This provides disagreement among biologists as to whether two populations are distinct subspecies or species. The argument you have presented on this is a straw-man.

Now let me define faith, and explain why science is inherently not reliant upon faith. Faith can be defined as:
1) "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny"
2) "an institution to express belief in a divine power"
3) "confidence in a person or plan"
4) "loyalty or allegiance to a cause or person,"
Science is not associated with the first as it requires evidence, anything supernatural is outside of the natural world and cannot be tested or measured.
Science is not associated with the second as the purpose of the institution is not to express a belief in divinity of any kind.
Science, as a method and body of knowledge, does not have confidence in anything, it simply is a "follow the evidence" method to derive meaningful explanations.
Science does not have loyalties or allegiances to any cause or person, individuals within the scientific community do form a groups to assist one another, but this is out of either friendship or balanced reciprocity, not for "loyalty or allegiance."

Trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does nothing to support the false dichotomy which you construct, the "it's either evolution or god" is exactly this. I can imagine a situation in which both of us are wrong, making the dichotomy false. An example of a valid dichotomy which is often used in science is this: "either deoxyribonucleic acid is the mechanism of heredity or it is not." This dichotomy examines ALL possibilities, "a" and "not a." False dichotomies do not address all possibilities thus making any conclusion drawn from them based upon faulty premises. Your argument is as follows: "A or B, not A, so B." In actuality, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J [...] "ZZ9 plural Z alpha" could be true. So even IF evolution is disproven, it does not prove your case.

Note, I said "trying" to poke holes in evolutionary theory; why did I say this? Simply because it has been tried for the better part of a century and every hole has been removed without question once tested. The resulting theory is only more robust from the jabbing. This is how we have arrived at the modern evolutionary synthesis; testing, questioning, and probing into how evolution works.

Jared Cormier