The creationist handicap

Writing for the National Post, Prof. P. D. Brown says:

Like the evangelicals and other Christians he chastises for thinking that God might actually create something, I appreciate that Jonathan Dudley believes he is defending some variation of faith in God (The Christian duty to accept evolution, June 19). However, lurching into a naturalistic version of evolution occasionally baptized with the word “theistic” is arguably a worse mistake than the alleged immoderation of creationism.

Brown insists that it is evolution, not creationism, that has trouble explaining things.

[E]volutionary theory does not explain a lot of things – it does not explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record or the stasis that follows, it has no explanation for the coding and translation systems in life as they actually exist, it has no explanation or verifiable clues about the origin of life, it does not explain the origin of multiple layers of programming in the organism, it has no explanation for coordinating those multiple layers or how they relate to evolving function and development, it does not even explain — much less demonstrate — how a fruit fly could change to a house fly or vice versa (that would at least demonstrate that common ancestry between the two is possible), it does not explain how or why a common primate ancestor would diverge into chimps and humans, in fact it explains precious little at all. It is a one-trick pony doing a thousand versions of the claim: “Similarity implies common ancestry.”

But the real punch line here is in the credits at the bottom.

P.D. Brown is a professor of chemistry, biology and environmental studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia

Read the rest of this entry »