Login / RegisterMuch work still needed to prove evolution
Terry Glavin's article on the research conducted by Rosemary and Peter Grant ["Finches provide the proof," November 15-22] strikes me by its admission that until recently the evolution of the finches on the Galápagos Islands had not been proved. Those who reasonably question Darwin's theory have no problem with what has been called micro-evolution; for example, evolution of the size and shape of the beaks of finches, or of the colour of moths, or of bacteria that have come to resist antibiotics. The issue is not the sort of evolution that has occurred within a species that has adapted to its environment but which remains a finch or a moth–that is, by and large, conceded. The real issue is that of macro-evolution, which involves the claim that inanimate matter and the laws governing it entirely account for the origins of life, and that complex life forms, including the human species, eventually developed by the sole mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. If evolution within the species of finches on the Galápagos Islands has only recently been proved, much more work still needs to be done to prove the far more ambitious theory that posits evolution as an all-encompassing explanation of the origins of life. And, indeed, if the faith of Darwinists were to be vindicated and their ambitious theory were one day proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, questions would still remain as to the origin of the stuff that makes up the universe and of the laws of nature that guided the evolutionary process.
> David Klassen / Vancouver
Have you considered the recent work of Anthony Flew, a British philosopher who for decades was a prominent atheist, but who now admits that reason assures us that there is a God (considered as first cause and designer of the universe)? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew.
Have you considered the fact that empirical science relies upon rules of logic for the validity of its inferences? Those rules of logic cannot be proved by empirical science. They are a condition for the possiblity of such science. This shows that empirical science, for all of its accomplishments, is not the only avenue of rational inquiry. There can be rational arguments, such as the metaphysical arguments for God's existence, which are not dependent upon empirical verification. The logical positivists had a verification principle which said that something that cannot be empirically verified or falsified is meaningless. Then one day someone pointed out that the verification principle cannot be empirically verified.
To briefly sketch a more complex metaphysical argument, one begins with the principle that what has been efficiently caused cannot cause itself, because then it would precede itself, which is impossible. Therefore there must ultimately be an uncaused cause (i.e. God) to account for all caused things.
Have you considered the procedure of the Catholic Church for canonization of saints? A miracle must be proved, which is usually a cure from an uncurable illness which cannot be explained by medical science. The miracle is attributed to the intercession of the saint, and ultimately to God.
Have you considered the evidence of the incorrupt bodies of saints? See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous#Bernadette.27s_body_ex...