Previous Story
‘Evolution contradicts scientific law’
|
Posted on Jun 22 2005
I would like to respond to Joseph Weindl’s letter to the editor on June 16. I wonder if he “understands the process of natural selection” because he does not seem to even understand the nature of science.
As a science teacher, I routinely teach my students that science must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Neither creation nor evolution meets these criteria. Therefore, any theory on the origin of the universe is not scientific.
If you want to discuss scientific theory, let’s look at natural selection and the second law of thermodynamics. Natural selection describes the fact that some organisms are better able to survive in certain environments. Take, for instance, the peppered moth. There are two genetic variations: one light, the other dark. Before the industrial revolution in London, the trees were covered by a light-colored lichen. Not surprisingly about 99 percent of the peppered moths were light-colored, because dark moths were more likely to be seen and eaten. After the revolution, the lichen died, leaving dark-colored bark and a resurgence of dark peppered moths. Without boring you with genetics, it is possible to totally eliminate the gene for one of the two variations. And therein lies the problem.
Natural selection gets rid of already existing traits. It does not create new ones. The second law of thermodynamics, simply put, says that every system, or organism in this case, when left to itself goes from a state of complexity to simplicity. Natural selection affirms this, going from two variations down to one. While Mr. Weindl claims that “The theory of evolution is as close to fact as any theory can be,” in truth evolution directly contradicts a scientific law, which is certainly closer to fact than any non-scientific theory.
Sara Rockhey
San Vicente, Saipan
