Words: 689
Interestingly, though, the author does not refer to evolution as a theory, in his opinion, it is “the fact Of evolution”. It is this statement that I think summarizes this whole text, which concentrates on explaining and defending this supposed “scientific truth”. These 4 words put together his entire opinion on evolution, one which basically says ‘You are entitled to believe anything you want, but evolution is the most logical, scientifically proven, answer to how everything came to be”. Although he expressed himself with rich and scientific vocabulary, found that he didn’t have much convincing arguments to support his opinion. Also find that the arguments he did have lacked detail and evidence to effectively persuade the reader. For example, I think he should have included references from other scientists, and mentioned specific research done on, for instance, fossil evidence. The truth is that my opinion on evolution is very much the contrary of Ian Johnston. To me, and to many other scientists, evolution is just a scientific theory- a very poor hurry- that, when its own evidence is put together, gives a very different explanation. I found that some things in this article were not very reasonable.
In the last paragraph, Johnston says that ‘the general principle of evolution is as truly established as is, say, gravitation”. Gravitation is a law of nature that has been proven both by direct observation and experiments. Could this be said in the case of evolution? No human being was present when the universe was formed nor in the rise of life on earth, neither has anyone seen any species evolve until transformed in a different or more superior species. Which brings me to ask myself another question: If evolution were a fact, why has it stopped? Why have species suddenly stopped evolving into others?
This, along with other evidence, is one of the reasons I think that believing in evolution would require blind faith. Although different fossils do, like Johnston says, appear in different layers of earth, it is also admitted that they do not appear “at a uniform rate”. Evolutionary paleontologist David M. Rap says: “Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darning’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly never jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly out of the record. Fossil studies also show many new and diverse life forms appear suddenly in a relatively short period of time, also known as the Cambrian explosion. So, if the fossil records don’t exactly show species gradually changing through time, what do they show? It is interesting to know that the Bible’s account of creation in the first chapters of Genesis is accurate with what the fossil records say. Like the article mentions, different groups c fossils appear in different geologic periods, as shown in the account of the days of creation(this does not refer to a 24 hour day, but, like the expression “back in the day’, it refers to a period of time).
Species being created separately and according to their kind in 6 “days” of creation would explain the sudden apparition of new creatures in the Cambrian explosion. I don’t doubt what the article says on the subject of the human fossils being found the most recent layers of earth either, in fact, Genesis shows that on the sill ND last day of creation, “God proceeded to create the man”. But how could Moses, the writer of Genesis, have known the exact order of creation?
The chances of him guessing this are very low. It must have been the Creator, the one who directed everything, who inspired Moses’ writing accurately. These are just some of the reasons for which strongly believe in the Bible, in Its logical and proven explanation of God’s creation, and not in the theory of evolution. Although there are many logical, proven facts in Ian Johnston article, I don’t think evolution is one of them.