Letter - More questions for evolutionists


Several weeks ago a gentleman, who if I were to mention his name would be recognized by many of the older folks in the Walla Walla Valley as a highly respected individual, wrote me saying I was behind the times in writing against evolution. He suggested several books I should read.

After pondering his concern I offered to carefully read one of his books if he would do the same for one of mine. He agreed.

The book he brought me was “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne, Ph.D. The one I loaned him was “Evolution Impossible” by John Ashcroft, Ph.D.

Recently when it was clear we were both through he came to my home to compare notes. I quoted to him the following statement from Coyne’s book, “I can at least try to dispel the misconceptions that frighten people away from evolution and from the amazing derivation of life’s staggering diversity from a single naked replicating molecule.”

Some evolutionists teach that about 3.5 billion years ago in a warm little pool a molecule that was able to reproduce itself came into being. And from that little molecule came all the varied forms of life on Earth.

Then I quoted the following from an article I had about evolution as follows: “This part of evolution says that toads, sparrows, worms, cabbage plants, palm trees, lobsters, and scientists themselves evolved from a common one-celled ancestor.”

Then I asked if he agreed with both of those statements and he said he did. My next question was how was it possible that, for example, a toad’s anatomy could be joined to a palm tree and if there were any fossils that demonstrated how that could happen. He assured me that it could and there were.

I was not satisfied with his explanation, but was pleased with his response when I asked him if what had a happened 3.5 billion years ago could be proven using proper scientific methods. His response was no.

The idea in the book, and I am sure he was in an agreement, was that the way things have “evolved” during the 3.5 billion years have proved the theory of evolution to be true. There is yet another question evolutionists need to answer: Since there was just one little molecule with no other living thing, what was its source of food?

Donald Casebolt

Walla Walla


chicoli 1 year, 8 months ago

One question for a creationist. Why is it that Eve is always depicted having a navel, better known as belly button? If she was "created" by God,why did she need an umbilical cord?


barracuda 1 year, 8 months ago

A guess......... She's painted with a navel by the same people with the belief that Jesus is (was)caucasian


tpeacock 1 year, 8 months ago

I was born and raised a Catholic, went to St Pat's for 7 years before switching to Public Schools. This is merely to point out I do have a religious upbringing and background. On the same line of reasoning and questioning as the letter and responses go, if we all came from the same two people, how then do we account for the various nationalities, colors, etc. that the human race is made up of. There are many questions the evolution/creationism theories teem with, questions that just don't have easy or defining answers. More to the point, in my way of thinking, is how and/or why is it, that those who thump their chests so mightily about being upstanding Christians, and how all of life's answers, and justifications for vilifying certain others can be found in select passages from the Bible? In the same line of reasoning, with all the varied religions, how can one faith claim to be the true faith, and why are there so many varied interpretations of the Bible, and in the teachings of how man is supposed to behave to be considered a true Christian, and who, therefore is not? Truth is, at least the way I see it, is that we should all try to do our best to respect one another, always try to do the best we can for ourselves and our neighbors, not be judgmental at all towards each other, quit acting like we have all the answers because of the faith we follow; quite simply, follow the Golden Rule and get off the high horses so many pretend to sit upon. Some of the most conniving, inconsiderate, greedy people I have crossed paths with in my life, are the same that go out of their way to thump their chests about what a great Christian they are and how they hold a high position in their church, etc. The answers are not simple, they aren't going to come from one, two, or a handful of books (save the Bible when read w/o filters, perhaps), nor from inclusions/exclusions in paintings, or books. The real answer comes from an individual's heart and mind, and then the question or theory becomes moot and relegated to trivia.


chicoli 1 year, 8 months ago

Good for you, tpeacock! I, like you, have a Catholic background as well. As years passed I decided to "retire" to my own convictions. As a physician the embriological/ genetical studies consolidated my believe in the scientific, evidence base evolution of life as a whole. The navel-placenta evolutionary argument is very convincing to me, as a central point for debate.

As a trivia, and in a lighter tone let me tell you about someone who believed that navels are so important to the point of the country having a Philadelphia "Navel" Hospital, just for the treatment of navels!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!


Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in