Your Letters

Whitcombe’s article on evolution unclear

Re: Todd Whitcombe’s column: Evolution of the planet Earth, Sept. 20.

The subject title is somewhat ambiguous to me as I will try to point out below:

First statement: Where life originated is not even addressed in the article.

Second statement: How life originated (there are several contradictions throughout the article).

Third statement: The answer is “no one knows for sure.”

Whitcombe then contradicts himself, particularly by his sure explanation of all being – how life originated.

I guess if you can hoodwink or pull the wool over some of your UNBC students’ eyes – that is supposed to be adequate grounds for doing so the rest of the public too, even during Raise A Reader week ( Raise A Reader Day, Sept. 19)

Whitcombe refers to the fossil record for clues.

He says fossils give “good ideas of what must have happened,” then never once uses a fossil example of what he is talking about during the “billions upon trillions upon quadrillions” of examples of molecular activity over billions of years (pretty hard to get a fossil of a molecule no doubt).

However without going into more of what I believe are contradictions of Whitcombe’s article here surrounding RNA (without first addressing DNA) getting living cells from non living matter and Darwin’s evolution – I close with a scientist’s statement recently:

Inevitably, of course, not only those of us who do science, but all of us have to choose the presupposition with which we start.

There are not many options – just two, really.

Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origins to mindless matter, or there is a creator.

Strange, is it not, that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.

I came across

Jack Bredin Prince George