January 15, 2006

Dear Sir,

The letter from Duckhunter in your Religion Section provided an interesting, if somewhat confusing point of view regarding the conflict between what he referred to as the "random" explanation of the origins of life compared with what the Scripture tells us of the origin of man. He says disparagingly: "Some would have us believe that we humans just evolved ? there was a random back up and smack up of some gases ? and after an excessive number of calendar years finds us (humans) forming highly developed societies." How is that for a brilliantly analytical repudiation of the Big Bang theory and evolution in one succinct sentence!

He seemed to rest his case against the Big Bang theory and evolution on the views of John Falconhorn of Cambridge University whom he described as one of the leading quantum physicists in the world and a "recent convert to Christianity". It is always fascinating to study those eminent scientists and pseudo-scientists who are said to dispute the theory of evolution with their own attempts at providing a scientific interpretation of the biblical creation - often referred to these days as and previously asUnfortunately, most of these so-called scientists turn out to be bogus, or have bogus credentials, and none ever submit evidence of their findings to any legitimate major scientific associations or journals where their prognostications would be subject to peer review, testing, replication and verification etc.

But I figured maybe such an eminent world renowned scientist as Mr. Falconhorn might prove to be the exception. So I went searching the internet to read more about him.

I scoured the Cambridge University website, numerous websites on quantum physics and quantum physicists, and in desperation even checked Google which usually has information on just about every person in the known universe. Sadly, all to no avail ? except for one! The only reference in Google's vast search engine was the letter printed in the from Duckhunter. No other source on the internet could find any trace of the mysterious John Falconhorn of Cambridge University. I have to confess that Duckhunter had me stumped.

However, I now have reason to believe that Duckhunter was referring to John Polkinghorne, a priest who was a theoretical physicist at Cambridge. Mr. Polkinhorne has written numerous books and articles about his religious beliefs, but has never, to the best of my knowledge, submitted any papers to the major scientific journals on this particular subject in an effort to meet the criteria stated above.

I should also point out that although Mr. Polkinghorne is an Anglican priest, his beliefs appear to vary widely from those of Duckhunter. For example, Polkinghorne is quoted as saying: "We now know that the universe did not spring into being ready made a few thousand years ago but that it has evolved over a period of fifteen billion years from its fiery origin in the Big Bang." Oops. That seems to be rather at odds with Duckhunter's scientific pronouncements.

Polkinghorne also seems happy to accept biological evolution with his statement that "Mutations occur through happenstance. That produces some new possibility for life, which is then sifted and preserved in the lawfully regular environment which is necessary for the operation of natural selection."

There is no doubt that Mr. Polkinghorne is both a scientist and a deeply religious man who believes in God. But it would be manifestly wrong to completely misinterprete his writings, as attempted by Duckhunter, to denounce either the Big Bang theory, or the evolution of man over hundreds of thousands or millions of year.

Let me conclude by quoting Alan Gishlick, a devout Christian paleontology scholar who recently wrote an article in the New York Times: "Ultimately, creationism is not just bad science, it's bad Christianity, it's bible worship. There is just no reason to look at these patterns of layered sediment, or in the fossil record, or at the stars, and think that what you're seeing isn't what you're seeing. God doesn't require you to be stupid, to deny what you see, and to deny what you know."

Now there's a thought for the honest sceptic and seeker of truth to ponder.