Science may be neutral as David Layzell said, but scientists and biology teachers are not! They all bring to their specialty their world view. They evaluate the data through the lens of that world view. If you are a “microbe to man” evolutionist then that belief affects your conclusions regarding the science you are examining.

For example, when Professor Dawkins on National Radio states that living things have the “appearance of design,” he is unwilling to accept that it is design because his world view won’t allow him. Those hard wired into their world view cannot or will not accept evidence that contradicts their world view.

David gently chides Melissa Scott for not providing evidence when she asserted science backs creation by God. I suggest he obtains a copy of Dr John Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome available through Creation Ministries International. Also its website, creation.com, has many articles written by scientists that provide evidence for young Earth creation.

One of the most corrosive influences upon our young people in their abandoning Christianity is the teaching of neo-Darwinian theory. We should be doing all we can to provide them with the tools so they can confidently challenge this godless world view.

– Dennis Blong

Dargaville

David Layzell replies: There are many reasons why young people leave the church; one of them is when they are forced to choose between a particular biblical viewpoint and evolution. In my long experience, biology teachers are sensitive to differing world views of their students. I wish I could say the same about all Christian teachers.

John Sanford (inventor of the gene gun) is on my “to read” list. “Young Earth” theories have no credibility, they distort reputable dating information. It is true that creationists do have answers. But they are always on the back foot, responding to more scientific discoveries. They never make useful predictions.

There is overwhelming confirmation from molecular genetics of the accepted evolutionary trees, but they do however enable scientists to choose between alternate pathways.

If probability calculations in physics, chemistry and biology really did rule out classical Darwinian evolution, then it would have been trumpeted in scientific journals. Scientists are very competitive people and one way they gain prominence is by refuting the ideas of other scientists.

The editor’s final word: We have given David Layzell the chance to respond immediately so that we can wrap up this debate and move on to some new topics in the New Year. Thanks to all those who have contributed over recent months to the evolution-creation debate. However, this has now been well canvassed and we are closing correspondence on this issue. In the New Year we’d love to see some letters on other issues that are of importance to the Church: the growing socioeconomic gap and child poverty, the role of our church in a secular society, our mission to the world, why young people feel alienated by the church, why more people are leaving the Church each year than are being baptised into faith, etc.