I am writing this letter as a response to Allen Ortmann’s letter on Evolution in the Coeur d’Alene Press on April 11.

It’s a basic fact that things cannot spawn themselves from nothing. We see The Coeur d’Alene Resort and figure out that Hagadone must have built it. We see a person using an iPhone 5S and we remember that Apple designed and constructed that phone last year. Similarly, a letter in the paper assumes that someone wrote it. It’s not logical to wake up, open the paper, and shout “WOW! Look at what randomly spawned in the Opinion section!”

The universe is enormous and complex — we don’t understand all of it. Take simple things like gravity, the position of the Earth from the sun, temperatures, atmospheric pressure, even down to the organs in our bodies. Mr. Ortmann mentioned the development of eyes, starting in the ocean. First, how can a creature randomly spawn its own eyes? Randomly. That is how the evolutionary theory works — a series of random, unguided steps in spawning matter, living or non-living things. Second, how can a creature randomly spawn an eye and somehow get other land creatures to spawn their own eyes? I’m assuming we all can see this section of the paper — how did the sea creatures give us that ability? I’m not going to anticipate an answer except that an answer that defends evolution needs to be random and unguided.

Mr. Ortmann mentions that science needs to be proved by “direct objective observation and experimentation or testing.” But later he admits, in the next sentence, “This is not possible when studying evolutionary processes.” I wholeheartedly agree. How do we experiment on a process that supposedly randomly spawned everything? We can’t recreate the “Big Bang.” Several scientists tried to zap amino acids with electricity and create life, and all they ended up with was chemical soup. Every day of the week. Furthermore, Mr. Ortmann mentions that “We can, however, dogmatically assert that vision (and I assume everything else) evolved, since … we have a rich heritage of Darwinian doctrines on which to base our subjective observations.” Ladies and gentlemen, may I produce the Darwinian Religion! It is an attempt to conduct science using dogmatic assertions and Darwinian doctrines. Essentially, we’re supposed to accept Darwinian thought before we prove it! Mr. Ortmann mentions that all “other branches of science” need to be proved by direct observation, et cetera, making Darwinian thought an exception. At the end of the paragraph he mentions that “this observation can further be validated by numerous examples of mutations …” and so on. Why are we trying to use observations to prove a theory that is somehow exempt from the system that makes sure all other science works! Welcome to the Darwinian Religion. There’s no direct scientific link. It’s all dogma and doctrine.

Mr. Ortmann mentions E. Coli, and here I can safely say we agree. We do see microevolution, where species adapt on a smaller level. This isn’t proved by Darwinian doctrine — it’s shown in scientific evidence. However, Mr. Ortmann tells us to take a “leap of faith.” Now I believe that’s a doctrinal term, not one in science. We don’t leap in faith in science as we rely on observations!

Mr. Ortmann finishes by saying that evolution is the only reasonable explanation. I’ll offer a better explanation — Genesis 1-2, and Job 38. I know people will object and say that I am contradicting everything I say regarding faith and doctrine in science. But, I’m not using science to prove a Creator. At the least, science tells us that there is an element of design in the universe and that it could not reasonably be randomly generated. I say that we need to look beyond science to find the origin of the universe. The universe was created by something or someone far beyond the universe that we know and understand — how can science prove what or who that being is? We need to look elsewhere for an answer. I could go on to defend my side as establishing God as the Creator of the universe, but I’m out of time and space. If you want the basic tagline, here it is: evolution does not answer the question of the origin of the universe. Regardless of where you go from there, science needs a new explanation that does not try to put random, unguided spawning into a universe with design.

CHRIS MAJOR

Coeur d’Alene