Community Commentary -- Rick Rainey

I’d like to respond to Joseph N. Bell’s column from Feb. 14 (The Bell

Curve -- “Answering the creationist challenge”).

Interesting how almost every time Joe Bell writes, he seems to take a

few potshots at trustee Wendy Leece and the “Creationist/Fundamentalist”

camp.

Bell paints Leece out to be an uninformed and unenlightened person.

Again, a real cheap shot. We all have our faults, but he’s too harsh on

Leece.

As for again “clearing up” the conflict between the teaching of

evolution and creationism (intelligent design), Bell might consider, with

an open mind, to look at some of the creationist arguments. “Evolution”

is not a fact; it is referred to as the “theory of evolution.” The fossil

record has never produced or revealed a transitional form of life from

one species to another. This is well-known in the scientific world.

Within a species, yes, but not a finch to a hawk.

The evolutionist and fossil expert Dr. Colin Patterson Sr., a

paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said “the famous

fossil expert Stephen J. Gould, and the American Museum people, are hard

to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.” Evolution

teaches that our complex bodies and all life forms on Earth started from

primeval “rocks.” This, too is well-known and taught widely. Prehistoric

rains on these rocks ran off and formed pools of primordial “soup,” which

later became electrified by lightning strikes and produced crude living

cell systems. Over “billions” of years, these strikes, along with time,

produced more complex cells, and so on.

We all know that our clothing, bodies and machines wear out with time.

They do not, or have never been observed in a scientific setting, evolve

into a higher state of assembly or order. The entropy law and the law of

thermodynamics both contradict evolution. Isn’t that “observable”

science? Self-organization (evolution) violates the entropy laws. Complex

system assemblies require all subsystems to be functional for system

survival. In our bodies, we have many systems, such as the eye, that have

several subsystems and without all systems fully functional, the eye does

not work.

If we are to believe evolution, we need to allow the “bending” of

these rules so that the five subsystems in the eye all waited for each

other, over “millions” of years, to perfect themselves independently of

one another. However, there is a problem: “accidental” mutations do not

survive -- for long.

If we took a space trip to an unvisited star system and observed a

Rolex watch on the ground of the planet we were visiting, would we be

foolish enough to believe that it assembled itself through chance? That

is roughly what evolutionists would have us believe about our bodies,

that they “intelligently” and “randomly,” by chance, assembled to a

higher state.

Molecular biologists today know that DNA is actually “software.” It’s

the real you. According to the principles of information theory, the

amount of information required to synthesize an organism or machine is

directly related to the complexity of the organism. An amoeba has about 2

million nucleotide pairs, where man has an estimated 6 billion pairs.

Accordingly, the evolution of an amoeba to man would require a tremendous

amount of new information and programming to prepare the highly complex

organs and systems in mankind.

Where did this “programming” come from? Natural selection, as shown,

will not allow subsystems to lay dormant while the next system mutates,

because if they aren’t useful, they die. Harvard University’s

paleontologist and evolutionist Jay Gould said: “Of what possible use are

the perfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a

jaw or half a wing?” (mutations).

There are only two ways to believe in life: either it evolved by

chance (the only view allowed in public schools) or God (intelligent

design) created it. According to eminent British astronomer Sir Fred

Hoyle, “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup from which

life is made,” the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by

random processes without intelligent direction would be about one in 10

with 40,000 zeros after it. This is a definite mathematical

impossibility, according to scientists today.

Hoyle also said: “This situation [mathematical impossibility] is well

known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively

on the theory. . . . Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of

its grip on the educational system. . . . You either have to believe the

concepts, or you will be branded a heretic.”

Is it possible that our educators and educational systems of higher

learning do not want to be branded “Christian, fundamentalist,

creationist heretics?” Yes.

Say it isn’t so, Joe.

* RICK RAINEY is a Costa Mesa resident.