Many scientists don't fall in with theory of evolution

Jack DeBaun (June 9, 2005), makes the case that the majority of scientists believe in evolution. It is true that the majority of scientists hold that position. However, consensus does not make the hypothesis a fact.

History shows this to be true. There are a significant number of scientists who do not find the theory of evolution all that impressive of an explanation for life on Earth. Visit http://www.sandpint.net/tknapp/evolutioncreation.htm.

The fact of it is, we do not find any examples of changes in living things that would substantiate macroevolution. That is why, when evolutionists are really pressed on the issue, they must default to interpreting the fossil record or make arguments from homology. In other words, subjects that cannot be tested and are heavily influenced by their presuppositions. Jack throws down the gauntlet in his "lines of evidence" from various fields of science. This is called elephant hurling. That is, throwing down summary arguments to give the appearance of weighty evidence while uncritically accepting the arguments from his own side. How about a single line of irrefutable evidence? I challenge Jack to give the readers just one concrete example of a biological change which will substantiate the molecules-to-man idea of evolution. For a rebuttal to the so-called "29-Plus Evidences to Macroevolution," visit http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp.

Finally, he is dead wrong about the origin of the first living cells. It is an aspect of evolutionary theory. It is often referred to as "chemical evolution." It's a nasty little subject they don't really want to bring into the discussion because of the insurmountable hurtles it presents. If natural processes can't produce the first cell then why should we be confident that they can drive large scale changes, i.e., macroevolution?

TIM KNAPP

Clark Fork,