Posted by Tallyman [Tallyman] on March 28, 1999 at 13:37:53 {N/HynnShjYAsHMpiahQwMWMpmbQ/.WI6g}:
[3/28/99] Letter: Science and religion: Higher-powered intervention...
Read it at the Newspaper site in html.
Regarding Gregg Easterbrook's March 21 Op-ed
article "Religion sheds
light as science discovers," some clarification is needed. From the
leading creation scientists I've talked to, his lumping of both the
micro and macro together into just "evolution" misrepresents a
growing
section of science.
"Micro" evolution describes the observable trait of living things to
have the possibility of great variation, due to their genetic coding.
Variations can range from timber wolves to Chihua-huas.
"Macro" evolution
is the idea that adaptation's cumulative effect, over vast amounts
of time, without intelligent intervention, can result in fish turning
into humans. This is the part that creationists and other
biologists
disagree with, not micro-evolution.
Research such as published in the non-creationist Michael Denton's
"Evolution: A Theory
In Crisis" is increasingly proving the impossibility
of "macro" evolution. Yet still, worldwide there are thousands of legitimate
Ph.D. scientists from all disciplines who are creationists, but don't
"come out of the closet"
for fear of the loss of grants or jobs.
Yes, the schism between science and religion should be mended, but
not at the cost of dispensing with the uniqueness that holds the value.
According to macro evolution we personally and as a
society have only
our own rules to follow; morality is relative if considered at all.
But as science has slowly been coming back to realize, the astounding
precision and purpose observed in the cosmos and in ourselves can't
be
the product of random chance and hints at a need for account-ability
to a higher power.
DIANA WHEELER
Raleigh