David Layzell’s letter in the November NZ Baptist correctly observes that science is neutral. This is true for genuine science, but regrettably scientists are not – they are guided by their belief system. Both evolution and creationism are belief systems, as are all the variants in between, and these beliefs inevitably colour their views of scientific evidence, and their scientific practice.

Statistical probability in the realms of chemistry, physics and biology virtually rule out classical Darwinian evolution and strongly favour intelligent design, as does the matter of irreducible complexity.

David Layzell claims that there is evidence that two ape chromosomes have joined to form one human chromosome, but there are other equally valid explanations from a creationist viewpoint, which are beyond the scope of this letter.

Speciation and natural selection are claimed as evidence for evolution, but these usually involve loss of genetic information, rather than the gain of genetic information which classical evolution demands. These phenomena are evidence for intelligent design in creation rather than evidence of evolution.

And the relentless rise in unfavorable genetic malformations favours a recent creation, rather than long ages evolution. I have followed the biology, genetics and chemistry of the human brain in great detail for 50 years, and have no doubt that it involves intelligent design and in no way favours the randomness that classical evolution demands.

From a creationist point of view, Jesus certainly regarded the early chapters of Genesis as an accurate account of the beginnings of the world, and Noah’s flood as being genuine historic events. He also claimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” If the creation account is not accurate, this would make Jesus’ claims false, and it would invalidate his death as being for sin that entered into the world with Adam and Eve as being unnecessary.

– Allan Taylor
Auckland