Sandra CashDr. ThomasSCI 244April 15, 2012 Origins Paper In “Genetics: Enemy of Evolution,” Dr. Lester talks about how genetics does notsupport evolution at all. The attitude of Dr. Lester on the relationship between faith andscience is hard to identify. This is due to the fact that he does not say much about faith,but I would guess that science has more authority than faith in his opinion. His positionon evolution is that it is not true, and he gives evidence by using genetics. The opposingview would probably refute the claims by saying that it is still by natural selection, andthat variations are inherited. In order to understand this information to have a validopinion, a person would have to know about biology, evolution, creation, and genetics. Ipersonally feel like I do not know enough on genetics to have a valid opinion on thistopic. Ph. D. Lester’s attitude on the relationship between faith and science is hard forme to identify, since he does not say much on this topic. He says, “I would prefer to talkabout creation and the testimony of genetics to the power and glory of the Creator,” thisbeing said he is obviously believes in some super divine being, but does not tell what hethinks about the relationship between faith and science. I would guess that science hasmore authority than faith in his opinion, because he said this:
“Research is being done at both secular and Christian colleges and universities that seeks to rebuild science on a foundation of creation. I say ‘rebuild’ because modern science was developed primarily by creationists who knew that a rational God had created a rational universe, and that rational man could, through observation, experimentation, and reason, learn much about the creation” (Lester). Lester’s position on genetics is that it disproves evolution and natural selection.His first argument against evolution and natural selection concerns external factors whichinfluence an animal only during its lifetime. An example of this would be if someone hasdarker skin than someone else simply because that person is exposed to more sunshine(Lester). These environmentally variations may have importance only on the individualwho posses them, but these variations die with that individual, and are not inherited(Lester). Lester’s second argument is the reason of variation is recombination (Lester).This involved mixing up genes; as introduced by Gregor Mendel’s study of seven pairs oftraits in the garden pea (Lester). In this study, he found that traits could be hidden for ageneration, but they were never lost (Lester). Also, when new traits appear it is becausethe genes have been there all along (Lester). The last argument is on mutations. For although mutations are few, once in every10,000 to 100,000 copies a gene will contain a mistake (Lester). According to naturalselection theory, this would not happen (Lester). This would not happen because, ifmutations spread, it would kill off a species. If it did happen, natural selection wouldeliminate or minimize the harmful mutations when they occur (Lester).
The opposing side would probably argue that external factors, like a creaturehaving a greater resistance to disease because of proper nutrition, lead to longer life, andonce it reproduced, this would be inherited by the next generation. For the recombinationargument, they would probably argue that although it is hidden it is becoming more andmore a recessive gene, until it completely dies off. Finally, for the last argument, theopposing side would say that even though mutations occur occasionally, natural selectionwould eliminate or minimize the harmful mutations wherever they occurred (Lester). In order to understand this article, a person would have to know about biology,evolution, creation, and genetics. This is because; it talks about the theory of evolution,such as natural selection. It also, talks about creation, so a person would need tounderstand this, although creation is better explained in the article. Biology and geneticsare needed to understand all the scientific theories, and vocabulary that Lester uses in thisarticle. This being said, I have not developed a valid opinion, because at the present I donot know very much about genetics. Dr. Lester explains how the science of genetics does not support evolution,because mutations would not happen, genes hidden as a result of recombination that someare still there, and that external factors are not inherited. The opposing view wouldprobably refute the claims by saying that it is still by natural selection mutations areeliminated, the hidden genes are a recessive that will be eliminated as they becomes moreand more recessive, and that variations are inherited. I would say that Dr. Lester wouldsay that science has more authority than faith in his opinion. I think this because he said,“I believe that the lack of creation-based science has helped evolution maintain its totalascendancy, even among those who would be philosophically inclined to reject it”
(Lester). To understand this article and come to a valid opinion, a person would have toknow about biology, evolution, creation, and genetics. This being said, I personally feellike I can not come to a valid opinion, because I do not know enough on genetics.
Works CitedLester, Ph.D. Lane. "Genetics: Enemy of Evolution." The Creation Research Society. Creation Research Society , 1995. Web. 15 Apr 2012. <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html>.