THIS one, dear reader, appears in a newspaper as a guest column; therefore we’ll give you the author’s name — Christine Hawthorne. She is described as: “a registered nurse, home school mom, and wife of Alan Hawthorne, a missionary to Indonesia. She resides in Hamilton when not overseas doing missionary work.” With qualifications like that, you’re in for a treat.
Cristine’s column is titled Easier to believe in God than to believe evolution , and it appears in the Hamilton Journal-News of Hamilton, Ohio. We’ll give you some excerpts, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:
How could he [prior letter-writer or columnist] have actually stated that evolution had been proved? Wouldn’t that mean that the theory of evolution would now be called the Law of Evolution?
Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:
I would love to see evidence of evolution of species (aka macroevolution) in action without the aid of computer-generated images. I have heard that some microevolution has been proved, but a small molecular mutation which results in very little change and no change of species just isn’t what most people think of when they hear that evolution has been proved.
Micro yes, macro no. Aaaargh!! We continue:
Unfortunately, no fossilized transitional life forms have ever been made available for inspection.
Aaaargh!! Here’s more:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, universally accepted by the scientific community, states that every system tends to become disordered …
Aaaargh!! Stay with us, it gets better:
I was taught that the evolutionists’ view is that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a space the size of a period on a page, and that this spinning mass then later exploded and formed all the celestial bodies including our own solar system.
What I don’t understand is why the Conservation of Circular Momentum was not in effect during that Big Bang. If the Big Bang were true, all the planets and moons in our solar system would be spinning in the same direction. However, they are not.
We haven’t seen that precise argument before. We ask you, gentle reader, to ponder what is meant by saying that the pre-Big Bang singularity was spinning. We understand that rotation is absolute, not relative. But still, in what sense could it be said that the singularity spins? Perhaps the Designer had access to Foucault’s pendulum? This would be the ultimate test of Mach’s principle.
I do indeed acknowledge the existence of gravity … I still need to be shown the same proof of evolution that he and other scientists claim to have seen. Seeing is believing, unless the believing is based on faith.
Aaaargh!! Another excerpt:
Since Darwin spent many years trying to refute the Bible, he could not be called a Christian — except as some kind of pseudo-Christian at best. By definition, a Christian must be a Bible believer.
Aaaargh!! It isn’t over yet:
[I]f the theory of evolution has no concrete proof, then it is based on belief or faith, and is therefore a religion. Evolution is a religion apart from Christianity, and in direct competition with Christianity for believers.
We can believe the creation story by faith or we can believe in billions of years and zillions of beneficial mutations causing multitudes of species and complexity within the species that is beyond our comprehension. I personally believe that it takes less faith to believe in God.
Cristine’s column then dribbles to an end with some scripture quotations. All in all, reading this one has been quite an experience.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.