Answers to Scientific
American Magazine's "15 Answers to Creationist (one who
believes the Great Infinite One created it all) Nonsense, written by biologist
John Rennie":
Evolution can not explain
how life first appeared on Earth, as you will see.
So why do some educators
teach it as true? Like duh! Shouldn't education be based upon the truest
most accurate information available and this be used for careful, exact
evaluation and comparison with alternate information regarded as being
still within theoretical
experimental boundaries? The challenge to evolution comes not from creationists
(those like me who know God created it all), but from the study of nature
itself. In spite of massive evidence to the contrary, they continue to
engage in telling their fairy tale. This is not science. It is closed minded
religion of the worst kind!
1) Scientific American:
"The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned
about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks
of life could have formed..." [SA 81].(*)
for each answer.
2) Scientific American:
"... and organized themselves into self replicating, self sustaining units..."
[SA 81].(*)
3) Scientific American:
"... laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses
hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space
and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of
how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our
planet was young." [SA 81].(*)
4) Scientific American:
"Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing
to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even
if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin (for instance,
if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution
since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and
macroevolutionary studies." [SA 81].(*)
5) Scientific American:
"Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations
that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance
to create organisms, proteins, or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural
selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom
change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating “undesirable”
(nonadaptive) ones.” [SA 81].(*)
6) Scientific American:
"As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can
push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in
surprisingly short times." [SA 81].(*)
7) Scientific American:
Evolutionists say "Biochemistry,
computer simulations and observations of 'natural' order (such as crystals
and snowflakes) show that evolution is highly probable.".(*)
