Letter: Fossil record gaps dismiss evolution as just guesswork

Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2005 | 9 a.m.

Well, it seems my recent criticism of the theory of evolution has drawn some indignant responses from a couple of Sun readers.

They claim that the word theory is a perfectly acceptable scientific term. My dictionary also defines theory as an unproven assumption. Speaking of words, read any work on evolution and you will find words like could, may, possibly, might, perhaps.

And what is their grand proof of the validity of evolution? Moths that change color, fruit flies that adapt to different environments, and antibiotic resistant bacteria. These are examples of microevolution within a species. Nobody disputes that. But macroevolution contends that not only did life spring spontaneously from nonlife, but also speculates that, somehow, fish became mammals. Talk about a miracle of biblical proportions.

As for my saying the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists, perhaps I was hasty. Mainly because there's hardly a fossil record to be embarrassed by. The entirety of "proof" of the so-called evolution of man consist of less than 5,000 pieces and fragments that could fit into the back of a pick-up truck. And this from the billions of humans that have come and gone since the dawn of time. There are not just gaps in the fossil record, there are unbridgeable chasms.

On second thought, you want embarrassment? Try these: Lucy, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been proven to be huge errors, complete hoaxes or are the subject of highly contentious debate.

The bottom line is this: If evolutionists want to believe they're apes, that's their prerogative. But if they have any intellectual integrity at all, they'll admit they're guessing as much as I am.

KEN LUCAS