Collegiate Times

After reading the letter "Explaining the reasoning behind refuting the theory of evolution," (CT, Feb. 20) I felt compelled as an informed person to write the editor explaining why that creationist author refutes the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, he never actually did any refuting, and his rambling rant of apparently unconnected points seems to have been based off of either misunderstood or incorrect information.

His first point is that the scientists in Darwinian times were ignorant about DNA. This is probably the second most factual statement his letter makes (more on that later). Anyway, yes -- they did not know about the functioning of DNA, and this makes no difference at all. Not only does the subsequent identification and study of DNA reinforce and enhance evolutionary theory, saying Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong because he wasn't familiar with DNA is like saying Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because he isn't familiar with Einsteinian relativity. Further developments in the field refine it -- they don't refute it. Next, the author embarks on a daring, single-sentence foray into abiogenesis, or the creation of life from nothing. He notes that, to assume DNA "evolved" from non-living substances is "blindly accepting the notion." To the assertion of blindly accepting notions, may I take a page out of your own book: "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, that you may see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5). A creationist who claims that one must see something to believe it -- what an unpleasant contradiction.  

The second overall point the creationist makes is that "carbon dating has proven inaccurate" because it puts the eruption of Mount St. Helens at thousands of years. Words fail me. The eruption of Mount St. Helens was never radiocarbon dated, ever, for a myriad of reasons -- primarily that volcanoes emit an excess of carbon-14, the isotope used for dating, which would greatly throw off such methods. However, there was a highly publicized case of potassium-argon dating of Mount St. Helens that had a brief flurry of controversy because the results show a several thousand-year discrepancy. This was quickly explained when people who actually knew what they were talking about noted that, first, K-Ar isotope dating does not accurately measure anything less than two million years old, and, second, the sample that was dated was hopelessly contaminated and not at all homogenous -- as the sampler himself admitted. Our creationist author then notes that, when using dendrochronology as a calibration method in radiocarbon dating, "all (tree) specimens discovered have been under 10,000 years (old). I do not believe that is a coincidence." Now we come to the truest statement of his letter. If indeed he means to say that there have been no 10,000 year-old trees discovered, then I, too, do not believe it is a coincidence. Trees don't live 10,000 years. Ever. However, if he means to say that there have been no tree fossils older than 10,000 years, that is just hopelessly incorrect -- there is nothing further to say.

Regardless, I hope our young creationist friend has been educated. I think it is fantastic to have an open forum of opinions and beliefs; however, I wish that people would do some fundamental research about their own points.  

Zach Freed

Junior, environmental science