Sounding Off:

David Pearson’s Dec. 11 letter (“Scientists respect Darwin”) brings up some interesting points that are at the crux of the age-old question of whether God is a creator or we humans are the result of a cosmic accident.

The starting point of the cosmic accident viewpoint is that at some time in the primeval past, there was a spark in a pool of water that initiated chemical reactions that built the essential amino-acid building blocks of life.

The complex DNA molecule, the building block of life, was discovered by Francis Crick and James Watson, with crucial research from Rosalind Franklin, in 1953.

Since then, there have been many credible scientists who, while not religious, are at a loss to explain the chasm between the staggeringly remote possibility of these incredibly complex molecules, which are key to life, arising by chance, as opposed to them being what they really are, a digital code.

How do we have a design without a designer, or a code without a planner? Random chance? Perhaps, but it does not seem rational to think that complexity comes from randomness. The scientific Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves that notion, because it proves that order disintegrates down into disorder.

Darwin did not prove evolution, he only observed microevolution within species, not macroevolution between species.

He put forth his “theory” of evolution. In fact, he stated that he hoped that future discoveries in the fossil record would reveal transitional life forms between species to prove his theory. The lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record is still the dilemma faced by the evolutionists. One of the most notable of these scientists was Stephen J. Gould, who said in 1977 and 1986, that the lack of transitional forms was the trade secret of paleontology. That’s pretty telling, although not publicized much because most of the world today happily embraces evolution.

The bottom line of this age-old controversy of God creating mankind versus chance evolution is that most of us do not want to be in any way responsible to someone who made and created us, because it infers responsibility. So, we would rather believe that we are cosmic accidents, and that when we die, it’s over. There is absolutely no purpose in life if you take this line of thought to the extreme of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”

If so, we are just brute beasts, just a little higher than the next life form. Why do we have emotions, and a conscience? Why do we have feelings like love? Why do we respond to art, music and sunsets? Why can we communicate our thoughts through speech? These are not necessary if we are accidental. Did Darwin really prove anything? Not really, only that finches beaks adapt to different environments. Which is it? Creation or evolution?

RICK RAINEY lives in Costa Mesa.