Expressing Divergent Views on Evolution

* In “Making a Case for Connection Between Science and Religion” (Orange County Voices, Oct. 3), Professor Robert B. McLaren trots out several confusing canards of creationists.

First he writes that a major problem of evolution is “sheer time scale. A time frame is critical for scientific verifiability.”

His argument is unclear, but of course scientists constantly deal with sheer time scales in geology, paleontology, astronomy, archeology, as well as evolutionary biology.

McLaren poses an “even more crucial” difficulty: “Why do things get more complex when fundamental laws of physics propose that over time things get less so, run down, and finally cease to be?”

The professor may as well puzzle over how sweet-smelling red roses bloom out of steer manure in his frontyard. Evolution works, and roses grow, because the sun shines.

Over the 600-million-year history of life on Earth, we have received a constant input of energy from the sun, allowing complexity to increase, that is, evolution to occur. (It’s true that the sun is running down, and in billions of years will someday cease to be, preserving “fundamental laws of physics.”)

Author Michael Shermer smiles at arguments such as McLaren’s, noting, “Evolution no more breaks [fundamental laws of physics] than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up.”

Finally, the professor asks of evolutionists, “Why has the human brain developed to such vastly greater complexity than any other mammal’s? There is no clear survival value in solving quadratic equations. . . .”

If a person is pondering the value of a better brain, I’d recommend a visit to the San Diego Zoo to verify it is the monkey, not the person, which is in the cage.

Scientists and churchgoers should jointly recoil in protest when the preacher quotes a science text in the pulpit to “prove” the existence of God, or when a teacher thumbs to Genesis in science class.

God can be found through faith alone, and religious faith has no need for science to prop it up.

CHRIS KING

Irvine

* I wish to commend Robert McLaren on his fine column.

He explains succinctly how the conflict is not between science and religion but between some of their rigid fundamentalist practitioners.

He mentions two problems with evolution, the time scale which makes verification and prediction difficult, and the apparent discrepancy with chaos theory. Why doesn’t the human brain get less complex, run down and cease to be?

For the first problem, I have no answer. Perhaps we need to evolve further before we can answer this question.

Perhaps the answer to the second question is found in his next paragraph. “If Darwinian theory is correct, only those mutations are retained which enhance survival.” Perhaps we are assuming we have reached perfection and we have no need for further development.

But this may not be correct. Perhaps our evolutionary progress toward survival is not complete. Perhaps it includes our ability to solve quadratic equations. Maybe only nature, or God, knows.

ROBERT L. PORTER

Anaheim