Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)

Vernon Jenkins (
Sat, 20 Mar 1999 21:15:01 +0000

Hello again, Tim:

Thanks for your informative response. But how about 'pinning your
colours to the mast' so that we know where you stand in this debate? My
hope is that you're an atheist crypto-Christian!

It occurs to me that our exchanges to date need to be placed in a
broader context. You may remember that in an earlier response to Kevin I
suggested that evolution (as defined there) was something unique to the
world of science. For example,

(a) It provides an essential basis for all atheistic philosophies. [as
far as I'm aware, no other theory claiming to be 'scientific' intrudes
thus into the area of 'belief'.]
(b) It actively attacks the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian
scriptures - its proponents behaving with evangelistic zeal in this
(c) Its 'fruit' is invariably bad - something which can't be said of any
other scientific theory.
(d) Its validation is based purely on the interpretation of historical
data - for which a 'common designer' explanation is equally valid. There
is no concrete evidence that proves the alleged process to be ongoing
or, indeed, that it has ever occurred.

Faced with these considerations, the unbiased mind would surely infer
that this must be some unsavoury religious doctrine, fiercely opposed to
the gospel of Christ. I believe this to be the truth of the matter, and
something that defies a naturalistic explanation. The answer is to be
found not in the laboratory, but in the Bible. Accordingly, I believe
'evolution' and 'evolutionism' to be one and the same.

I am obliged to you for the examples of theories which might be amended
to make them unfalsifiable. However, as I have shown above, there is
more to evolution than immediately meets the eye; it is a special case,
and needs to be treated accordingly.

With regards,


Vernon Jenkins

[Musician, Mining Engineer, and Senior Lecturer in Maths and Computing,
the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan), 1954-87]