Letter - Evolution vs. creationism: Round 10 (or more)


Union-Bulletin readers must be weary of the evolution vs. creationism debate continued by yet another letter promoting creationism by Donald Casebolt. Those who support science and the massive scientific evidence supporting evolution have remained silent, so once again I’ll take up the cudgel for evolution.

Casebolt cites Dean Kenyon, Ph.D., to support his religious view of the origin of life. While Kenyon has a doctorate in biophysics and co-authored a proevolution text, “Biochemical Predestination,” he never “was at one time one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world” as Casebolt describes him.

Kenyon has published no scientific papers since 1976 and none of his eight published scientific papers contributed to evolutionary science. He was the lead author on only three of those papers. At that time he abandoned research but stayed on as an assistant professor of biology at San Francisco State University and began to incorporate creationism into the evolution course he taught, creating considerable antagonism from colleagues.

In September 1993, Percival Davis and Kenyon published “Of Pandas and People, a Creationist textbook.” Kevin Padian, biologist at UC Berkley called it “a wholesale distortion of modern biology.” Michael Ruse, professor of biology at UC Berkley wrote “this book is worthless and dishonest.”

Gerald Skoog, professor of education at Texas Tech University, declared the book was “being used as a vehicle to advance sectarian tenets and not to improve education.”

In 1992 Kenyon became a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement (formerly creation science). Also Kenyon is a board member of the Kolbe Center, a Catholic fringe group espousing a young Earth (6,000 years old) creationist philosophy.

The second scientist Casebolt cites is John C. Sanford, who received his Ph.D. in plant biology/plant genetics in 1980 from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He served as an assistant and associate professor of horticultural sciences at Cornell University from 1980-1998, retiring then after selling his biotech companies.

Casebolt cites Sanford’s book “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” published in 2005. Casebolt sums up Sanford’s message by saying, “In other words there are not enough beneficial mutations to support the evolutionary theory.” Sanford conducted no research to support that thesis. Other research negates it.

Sanford is also on record claiming that the age of the Earth is “less than 100,000 years old.”

Casebolt sums it up nicely when he says, “Sanford believes the biblical account of creation is correct and that ‘Jesus is our one true hope.’”

When you accept the dogma of biblical inerrancy and insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, you leap into a whirlpool and grasp at straws for survival.

Thomas H. Reed

Walla Walla


stvsngltn 1 year, 3 months ago

Can't imagine anyone getting weary of this discussion. Too interesting (albeit controversial). Hope you keep it going.


gordonphilpot 1 year, 2 months ago

I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but if I did not I would advance the following argument: Most substances are denser in solid form than in liquid form. Most liquids become denser as they grow colder. Water is peculiar in both regards. Ice - solid water - is less dense than liquid water and therefore floats on water. As water cools down to about 40 degrees Fahrenheit, it follows the usual pattern and becomes denser. Below 40 degrees it becomes less dense. Why is this important? Imagine an intelligent designer who wants to create life in the ocean. If ice were denser than water it would sink in a cooling period, the oceans would freeze solid and kill off all life. If water followed the usual pattern, cold water would sink to the ocean floor and freeze there. Again the ocean freezes solid and all life is destroyed. The intelligent designer made water this way so that life could flourish. Darwinist


fatherof5 1 year, 2 months ago

My wife and I saw the new "Noah" movie this weekend. It isn't a spoiler to reveal that at one point in the movie, Noah, who is a 10th generation descendant from Adam, tells his children the story of Creation. What I really enjoyed this segment was that the visuals for the "let there be light" etc. included a big bang-like explosion, followed by the formation of the stars and the planets. The third and fourth and fifth days could easily have taken millions of years in this video montage as "The Creator" separated the waters from the land, and caused the "beasts of the field" to evolve.

What I noticed was that there was no dogma for Noah that necessitated that the six days were literal. The point for Noah was that he had a Maker. Period.

For me, a literal 6,000 year-old earth without evolution is not an option. It ignores the fact that Hebrews told and understood stories in metaphor. More importantly, it ignores obvious scientific facts. Most of the Christians I know have no problem reconciling a Creator with evolution. They accept evolution like they accept gravity and a round Earth.


Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in