This is a response to a recent commentary by columnist, Tom Teepen, in which he ridiculed the idea that any thinking person could question the theory of evolution. He also insinuated that this theory is accepted as fact by the total scientific community. The facts, however, are that a growing number in the scientific community are questioning or outright rejecting Darwin’s theories.

A general description of the evolutionary theory is that life emerged from the primordial slime that resulted from the “Big Bang,” which supposedly took place several billion years ago. Then through millions of years, life slowly took shape and on earth, plants and animals gradually and spontaneously created themselves. The end result for mankind is that we are merely the product of impersonal forces of natural selection or mere chance. Early opponents of this theory pointed out some obvious inconsistencies. One is that this theory violates one of the most basic laws of science, the Law of Biogenesis, which states that existing life can only come from pre-existing life. At some point, for the theory of evolution to be relevant, spontaneous generation of life would have to occur. However, this has never been demonstrated in a scientific experiment.

Another is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that there is a general tendency for all matter to move towards greater disorganization. Evolutionary forces would have to move directly opposite this law and this has never been observed in any scientific setting.

Growing technological advances in many fields of science in recent years have only accelerated the movement away from blind Darwinian acceptance. People from such diverse scientific fields as laser physics, biochemistry, astrophysics, astronomy, genetics, molecular and cell biology, geology and mathematics are finding that the complexities of cellular structure and interaction cannot have been produced by the combination of chance, randomness and natural selection as theorized by Darwin. Very recent study of DNA codes has only strengthened this conclusion.

A practical illustration of this was done by Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Applied Mathematics at University College in Wales. He did some advanced mathematical calculations regarding evolution. His calculations showed that the probability of evolution being fact was about equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and would assemble a Boeing 747. Sir Hoyle was an atheist when he started this study and later became a creationist.

A book that summarizes much scientific study is “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, who graduated from Yale Law School and became an award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. Throughout a good part of his life, he was an atheist. He points out how many of the main pillars of evolutionary theory such as the Java Man, fossil records, Haechel’s embryos and Darwin’s “Tree of Life,” have been either shown to be outright false or badly distorted.

So why isn’t this information getting out, allowing our students to be taught both sides of this issue, especially since surveys have shown that about two-thirds of Americans believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

The reason is that the educational establishment and the academic community are rooted in the theory of evolution. Any even casual examination of academic freedom would mandate that both theories be taught. However, members of these communities disguise their one-sidedness in the name of science and mount an almost hysterical resistance to any change.

Interestingly, around 80 years ago, when this battle initially erupted, the ACLU viewpoint was that it would be bigotry to teach only one theory of origins. I would encourage them to review their arguments from 1925.

Tom Rasmussen, 6375 Twin Pines Road, is a former legislator from Helena.