Dr Monty White on BBC World Update!
6 September 2002
Dr Monty White, was asked to record a three-minute talk for BBC World Update (Radio) on ‘why am I a creationist.’ BBC broadcast the talk last Friday, and today it is airing some of the listeners’ responses, both critical and supportive. ‘We’ve had a lot of responses,’ the announcer admits.
I am a scientist and a creationist. I believe that the entire universe and everything in it has been created by an omnipotent God. I have carefully weighed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that creation is a more rational explanation of origins than evolution.
So why don’t I believe in evolution? I find it strange that so many believe that evolution is a fact and seem to be totally unaware that there is serious debate going on in scientific circles about origins and whether the evolutionary account is correct or not.
Some secular scientists realise that it is scientifically impossible for the genetic information of even the simplest self-reproducing cell organism to have been generated from non-living chemicals by chance natural processes. Some are on record as saying that the chances of life arising from a primordial soup by chance is the same as that of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a jumbo jet!
Neo-Darwinian evolution can account for the different varieties of plants and animals, by sorting out previously existing genetic information by splitting populations, and by natural selection eliminating information that is unfit in a certain environment. But this process cannot account for the origin of this genetic information or indeed for the addition of new genetic information to that gene pool.
Dear Dr White,
I just wanted to thank you for your wonderful 'I am a Creationist' essay delivered Thursday last on World Update.
Other scientists realise that there are organs and processes in living systems that can only be described as ‘irreducibly complex’. Some examples are the amazing photo-electrical chemistry of the eye, blood clotting with a ‘cascade’ of vital reactions, the immune system and cellular transport machinery. Such organs and processes can be likened to a mousetrap—all the parts are useless by themselves, yet when put together, the resulting construction works perfectly. There is no purpose in any of the parts by themselves, so there would be no selective advantage for organisms possessing these partly formed structures, so the neo-Darwinian processes could not build up the complete organisms little by little. Darwin himself agreed that his theory would be refuted if any structure could be found that could not be built up gradually, yet scientists have provided countless examples of this.
Many people do not realise that many of the arguments that are currently taught to favour evolution have been discredited. For example, it is now known that vestigial organs were called such because of the biologists’ ignorance of the functions of various glands and organs.
Many of the arguments for evolution, such as comparative anatomy and genetic similarity, can be used as powerful arguments in favour of creation. Comparative anatomy among the mammals, for example, shows that God used a blueprint and varied his blueprint for the different kinds of mammals that He created. The universality of the genetic code is another example of what you would expect if a creator God created all the plants and animals.
I have not accepted creation as an excuse for not thinking or as an excuse for burying my head in the sand. I have thought it through and have come to the conclusion that instead of believing that ‘in the beginning there was nothing and it exploded’ and here we are as a result of a cosmic accident, instead I believe that ‘in the beginning, God created’.