I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.

While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.

It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).

Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example this website),  and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).

We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.

But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See this website)

Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).

People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.

While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.

Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr)

* * * * *

I refer to the letter by Dr Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not - ST Online Forum Nov 15).

Dr Loke cited a number of sources in support of his view, with most of them from the 'Answers in Genesis' websites and a book by Michael Behe. Given what I perceive to be a Christian creationist slant of these sources, I suspect that Dr Loke did not have the benefit of getting a more balanced view.

More importantly, I am disturbed by the fact that overseas creationist movements have gained visibility in Singapore. I fully appreciate that Singapore is a pluralistic society and people holding different views are expected to have mutual respect for each other.

But I believe this is not a matter of holding conflicting views. It is a matter of separating science from religious and political movements which attempt to speak by using the voice of science.

Given that disagreements are common occurrences in the scientific community, any argument about the finer points of scientific matters can be easily sensationalised as total refutation of some scientific theories.

This is compounded by the tentative nature of all scientific understanding. Scientific hypotheses are accepted till proven inconsistent with observations.

I would also like to clarify that persecution is not the norm as Dr Loke suggested, given that scientists are a very argumentative lot and they are not easy to shut up.

In contrast, when it comes to religious articles of faiths, the certainty of adherents is the norm. The creationist went a step further by trying to pass them off as scientific facts.

I will not attempt to detail all the misconceptions raised, but I would like to point out that no one has the right to foist his religious beliefs on others, especially in Singapore where peaceful inter-religious relationship is highly-valued.

Finally, I would also like suggest a good source of reference on the development of creationism written by cool-headed social scientists who have refrained from taking sides - The cultures of creationism anti-evolutionism in English-speaking countries, edited by Simon Coleman and Leslie Carlin.

I hope this will provide Dr Loke with a more balanced view on the complex issues involved.

Yeo Chow Khoon

* * * * *

17 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

I read with great incredulity Dr Andrew Loke Ter Ern's letter 'Man's Evolution from Monkey a proven scientific fact? No it's not' (ST Online Forum Nov 15) primarily because of its disingenuous argument and bald assertion that evolution is a highly debatable theory.

'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution', asserts Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975). This statement rang through then and rings through even today. Every experiment that's done simply verifies the strength of the modern theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution as it stands is not debated. What is debated are the exact mechanisms and the importance which certain factors have over the others. This is highly disingenuous and certainty misleading. The only places where this debate is going on are in politics and religion.

If micro-evolution can occur, where's the magic barrier that prevents it from becoming macro-evolution? There can be sufficient changes within the gene pool such that one species can actually separate into two.

Science does not stand still and there exists a wealth of evidence for macro-evolution. A very useful guide for the layperson and even for scientists who want to know more about evolution is available at TalkOrigins.org's 29+ Evidence for Common Descent and Evolution (www.talkorigins.org). Similarly it's a terrible assertion that the fossil record contradicts evolution. No, science is empirical and the fossil record has consistently borne out evolution.

For more evidence, here's TalkOrigin.org's Fossil Hominds The Evidence for Human Evolution (www.talkorigins.org). Or again here, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils (www.talkorigins.org').

There have been missing links filled in but the problem with this is that every time science comes up with another missing link, the creationists claim that there are now two gaps. Furthermore, numbers don't matter in a scientific debate but strength of theories and evidence do. More to the point, a close reading of the statement expressing doubt shows that any scientist could in good faith sign that statement.

It simply expresses doubt about Darwinism. Modern evolution has long since passed that stage. We now know that Darwinism is incomplete because he did not have knowledge of Mandelean Inheritance of genes. It did however, make the theory much stronger.

But if it's just numbers you want, there's the National Centre for Science Education's (NCSE) (www.ncseweb.org) 'Project Steve', which is a tongue-in-cheek parody of such lists.

After all, scientists named 'Steves' (which include Steven and Stephanie) make up about 1 per cent of the scientific populace, but even so they have over 600 names down on a purposeful statement, which makes it effectively tens of thousands of scientists who accept evolution on an evidentiary basis.

And it's rather interesting that DNA and RNA are brought up because they are the basic building blocks of life and it is not sheer coincidence that they have an identical nature in every species. That is proof positive of common descend. But more fundamentally, how RNA and DNA came about is not an issue because they do not detract from evolution.

Furthermore, one has to question the basis on which Dr Loke claims that the hominid fossils are debatable. Perhaps if he were an evolutionary biologist specialising in hominid evolution, his authority could be accepted. But the evidence is really incontrovertible.

There really is no theoretical debate about evolution. It is more a theological debate. Dr Loke is partially right in that it's not a proven fact of science. But it is such a cornerstone of science and so convincing is the theory that scientists have effectively accepted it as a fact.

A theory is not guesswork or conjecture, much less a hypothesis. It is a framework with both descriptive and predictive power over existing facts. At any rate, there is no convincing alternative to evolution, and disproving evolution does not prove any other theory. That's the fundamental problem with Creationism and Intelligent Design.

The answers in Genesis underpin the belief that anything that's not in the Bible must be false, so any science that contradicts it must be wrong. As such its adherents believe in a 6,000-10,000 year-old Earth as well as a worldwide flood that coincidentally arranged the fossils in a perfect geological strata by age.

Forming such a conclusion and struggling to cram the fact to fit their version of 'science' simply is 'cargo-cult science', so it is not scientific.

Lastly, the books that Dr Loke speaks of are not scientifc works or research by any stretch of the imagination. They have not been peer-reviewed and they have been thoroughly discredited not just by scientists but also by theologians.

In fact, Dr Michael Behe's discrediting in the recent Dover trial might have been absolute when he admitted that his definition of theory was so broad that no scientific organisation accepts it and it's so broad in fact that astrology would count as 'scientific theory'.

This is a great example of why there is a need to separate religion and the state and in particular, religion from science.