Concept of evolution

In a recent column, Philip Martin expressed a sentiment that might easily be taken as disbelief in evolution. I don’t think that was what he meant. Lots of people speak of humans “evolving” in some moral sense that Darwinian theorists do not refer to. I hesitate to discuss the subject, because my own thoughts very often sound like something which might encourage creationists in their misguided views. Literal interpretation of colloquial translation does not represent the word of God.

Darwinian evolution is a theory, meaning it has not been proven. I doubt whether it can be. The fossil record seems to offer many examples of its occurrence. But all that can be certainly said of fossils is that they give an appearance of development. I don’t think a mechanism for evolution has ever been demonstrated. And when you get down to the nittygritty of speciation, the inheritance of learned behavior and acquired characteristics seems necessary, though most evolutionists would deem that impossible.

The concept of species is remarkably vague. Some people might be surprised to learn there is no simple definition covering all species of living things. One definition for the various species of this, another for those of that, so to speak … and never any real explanation how the changes might actually occur. The “why” of so-called evolutionary change seems more often than not to be environmental stress.

If evolution has occurred, it almost certainly must continue to occur. Regardless how the climate changes, creatures will (probably?) develop so to live in it. But evolution will not ever make people act nice. That has always been and will always be an individual’s personal responsibility. (Unless Lamarck was right.)

STANLEY G. JOHNSON

Little Rock