1. Sandra Cash
Dr. Thomas
SCI 244
April 15, 2012
Origins Paper
In “Genetics: Enemy of Evolution,” Dr. Lester talks about how genetics does not
support evolution at all. The attitude of Dr. Lester on the relationship between faith and
science 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 position
on evolution is that it is not true, and he gives evidence by using genetics. The opposing
view would probably refute the claims by saying that it is still by natural selection, and
that variations are inherited. In order to understand this information to have a valid
opinion, a person would have to know about biology, evolution, creation, and genetics. I
personally feel like I do not know enough on genetics to have a valid opinion on this
topic.
Ph. D. Lester’s attitude on the relationship between faith and science is hard for
me to identify, since he does not say much on this topic. He says, “I would prefer to talk
about creation and the testimony of genetics to the power and glory of the Creator,” this
being said he is obviously believes in some super divine being, but does not tell what he
thinks about the relationship between faith and science. I would guess that science has
more authority than faith in his opinion, because he said this:

2. “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 which
influence an animal only during its lifetime. An example of this would be if someone has
darker skin than someone else simply because that person is exposed to more sunshine
(Lester). These environmentally variations may have importance only on the individual
who 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 of
traits in the garden pea (Lester). In this study, he found that traits could be hidden for a
generation, but they were never lost (Lester). Also, when new traits appear it is because
the genes have been there all along (Lester).
The last argument is on mutations. For although mutations are few, once in every
10,000 to 100,000 copies a gene will contain a mistake (Lester). According to natural
selection theory, this would not happen (Lester). This would not happen because, if
mutations spread, it would kill off a species. If it did happen, natural selection would
eliminate or minimize the harmful mutations when they occur (Lester).

3. The opposing side would probably argue that external factors, like a creature
having a greater resistance to disease because of proper nutrition, lead to longer life, and
once it reproduced, this would be inherited by the next generation. For the recombination
argument, they would probably argue that although it is hidden it is becoming more and
more a recessive gene, until it completely dies off. Finally, for the last argument, the
opposing side would say that even though mutations occur occasionally, natural selection
would 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 to
understand this, although creation is better explained in the article. Biology and genetics
are needed to understand all the scientific theories, and vocabulary that Lester uses in this
article. This being said, I have not developed a valid opinion, because at the present I do
not 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 some
are still there, and that external factors are not inherited. The opposing view would
probably refute the claims by saying that it is still by natural selection mutations are
eliminated, the hidden genes are a recessive that will be eliminated as they becomes more
and more recessive, and that variations are inherited. I would say that Dr. Lester would
say 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 total
ascendancy, even among those who would be philosophically inclined to reject it”

4. (Lester). To understand this article and come to a valid opinion, a person would have to
know about biology, evolution, creation, and genetics. This being said, I personally feel
like I can not come to a valid opinion, because I do not know enough on genetics.

5. Works Cited
Lester, 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>.