'Fanciful stories' only

explain microevolution

Our favorite local evolutionist, Jack DeBaun once again comes to the rescue of the dying theory of evolution (June 9). First, he claims that 99 percent of scientists "have carefully examined the evidence" of macroevolution and have concluded it is a fact. Of course, majority rule does not determine truth. However, the real question is whether or not these alleged 99 percent truly examined the evidence.

Having majored in biology, I know from experience that very few life science majors ever carefully examined the evidence for evolution. It is simply assumed to be true. On the flimsiest evidence young college freshman are led to believe that evolution has been proven — awed by professors who were likewise once awed by their professors into believing absurd theories with little evidence.

The "evidence" that Jack appeals to is mostly based on comparative structures and design, whether anatomical or molecular. But what he fails to understand is that similarities between species is as supportive of common design (and thus a common Designer) as it is of common descent.

Jack further misleads his readers by making the absurd claim that the theory of evolution is not concerned with origins. That is merely a convenient way to ignore the ultimate question of whether or not evolution actually occurred. For example, Darwin started with fully developed finches, comparing their beak similarities. But he never asked where finches came from to begin with.

That is the universal tactic of evolutionists. They explain how frog limbs might be modified by mutation (microevolution) and then extrapolate that to where frogs came from to begin with (macroevolution). This is the fatal jump in logic (no pun intended) made by all evolutionists. Evolutionists must explain the origins of the universe, of life and of the various life groups. Don't be satisfied with fanciful stories that only explain microevolution.

RANDY HOHF

Sandpoint