Mailbag:

Rick Rainey is having a hard time separating the question of God as a creator and Darwin’s theories on evolution (“Darwin didn’t really prove much,” Dec. 12).

First, let’s have some perspective. Darwin’s theories were published 150 years ago with “On the Origin of the Species” and later on with “The Descent of Man.”

His work can be fairly ranked as one of the most important scientific books published. There is no reference at all to religion in the books.

In a nutshell, he made two points. First, that living animals are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, and, second, that natural selection is the product of evolutionary biology.

I am not arrogant enough to tell you what happened with regard to creation, but to deny Darwin’s theories to prove creation is scientifically naive. By all credible accounts the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

That amount of time is mind boggling when you consider that ancient humans came on the scene 2 million years ago, and modern Homo sapiens appeared only about 120,000 years ago. Every year that passes, we find more fossils that add to a clearer picture of the evolutionary chain.

This is where I have trouble with the creationists pitting themselves against scientists and bending the facts to suit their theories.

So people who believe in Noah’s Ark and the Earth is 5,000 years old are laughable. Even a presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, believes this stuff!

You want to witness evolution up close? How do you think resistance to antibiotics or new virulent strains of flu viruses happen? Here is some more Darwin theory to ponder: Genetic scientists have mapped the genomes of countless organisms. How can one explain how humans and chimpanzees have 96% of their genes in common? Do you really think that all of the extant and extinct animals on the planet existed all at once?

So in my view, asking whether a designer, cosmic planner or random chance happened when it comes to creation, it should be a scientific process. Rainey’s scientific “notations” regarding the discovery of DNA, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and citing Stephen Gould’s dated view of paleontology is weak and random; at least random explains a lot about Darwin’s theory on the origins of life.

Terry Johnston

Newport Beach