Letter to the Editor: Science does address the existence of God
Editor,
As a former college biology instructor, I read Prof. McMahon’s letter on evolution with great interest. I applaud his encouragement to students to base their opinions on “real evidence”, not ignorance. Unfortunately, this basic statement is problematic at best, insulting at worst. The implication is that if you doubt evolution, you are ignorant.
This flies in the face of the fact that many working scientists, from MIT to UC Berkely to even USU openly question evolution. In fact, a national survey of university faculty revealed that the most likely discipline to have faculty who espouse belief in God are physicists and chemists, what we often called the “hard sciences”.
For many, science supports or even leads them to believe in God and even reject evolution. (I am one as well) Biochemists like Michael Behe and others are saying recent findings in their fields demonstrate that biological evolution and abiotic origin of life is simply impossible. Rather, the evidence points to a creator. Recently, Antony Flew, well known athiest and campus debater, became a theist, mostly due to recent ideas in intelligent design. These, and many other examples, seem to refute Prof. McMahon’s later statement…”the methods of science…doesn’t address whether God exists.” Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein would strongly disagree.
To further complicate matters, how can we know what the “real evidence ” is? In the 1980’s I taught my students (as did all my colleagues) such things as the peppered moth study, Darwin’s finches, Haekal’s embryo’s, homologous structures, Miller’s experiments in origins of life, etc. All of these have now proven to be hoaxes, or discredited research. As one author put it in the journal Science, it is simply embarassing.
By all means, let us keep studying the issues. May I recommend Icons of Evolution by Yale and UC Berkely Phd Jonathan Wells and Reasons.org, an excellent website run by credentialed scientists.
Rob Gunn