Letters Readers’ views
Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution I had not finished Professor Konotey- Ahulu’s review of Dr Carl Weiland’s new book in your last issue (“Charles Darwin and His Apostles Have Got It All Wrong!”), when I rushed to get a modern biology textbook to read Darwin’s Teory of Ev- olution. When I read that text, which was meant for our secondary schools, I began to see why that knowledge must be expunged from our textbooks. Hon- estly, it is a fraudulent science left in many textbooks, just as Prof Konotey-Ahulu pointed out I salute the courage of NA in publish-
ing such a viewpoint. But beyond that, I am of the opinion that it is time to begin a campaign that must get Darwin’s theory out of the African curriculum. If Western nations choose to believe
that they evolved from an animal, we in Africa cannot dehumanise ourselves and believe in such a concept. I wish Prof Konotey-Ahulu’s viewpoint could be pub- lished in all newspapers and magazines distributed in all African countries. Ugwonno Chinedu
Aba, Abia State, Nigeria
Darwin and the Bible Having been captivated by the title, “Charles Darwin and His Apostles Have Got It All Wrong!”, I took it upon myself to read this article, not once but several times, and each time I read it, I not only developed the zeal and determination to respond to it, but certain ideas highlighted by the writer, Prof Konotey-Ahulu, dis- turbed my mind and prompted me to write this critique. I am delighted by the title itself. It is
also my opinion that Darwin and his apos- tles got it wrong with the Teory of Evo- lution as the basis for understanding how the universe came about. Te theory does not offer plausible arguments to sustain the claim that the world is a product of evolu- tion. It is merely “whistling in the dark to keep their scientific courage up”, as Prof Konotey-Ahulu nicely puts it. Like Dr Wieland and many other
Christians, I agree it is plausible to assert that the creation of the universe cannot be explained without God or a Supreme Being (in philosophical terms: the ultimate cause, the uncaused cause).
6 | October 2011 | New African
However, this is not the case. Te text of the flood is written from
two perspectives woven together. For those who have a background in Scripture Stud- ies, they would know that it is written using two traditions common with the au- thors of the Ancient Near East, the Priestly (P) and Yahwist (J) traditions. Te text says two things about the ac-
Charles Darwin, whose Theory of Evolution is under fire
Having said that, there are some points
highlighted by Prof Konotey-Ahulu as being in Dr Wieland’s book that I beg to differ on. Tese include the citation of the book of Genesis, to be precise Noah’s flood, as providing a basis for the argu- ment against evolution. Prof Konotey-Ahulu quotes Dr Wie-
land as having said that the eight human beings who survived Noah’s flood can provide us with evidence to account for the different races on earth. Tis seems to be a rather far-fetched idea to postulate. Why do I say this? We must understand
that the flood in the Bible is not a histori- cal fact. Te story of Noah is a myth and must be left precisely as that. Te Genesis creation texts or stories,
such as Noah’s flood, are not meant to answer scientific questions on how the world came to be. Tey are to show God’s relationship with people but not to be un- derstood as history. In the article, there is a statement as-
cribed to Dr Wieland that says “the Bible is history, not myth”. Tis statement is rather disturbing. I am not disputing the relevance of this sacred text or diminish- ing its significance whatsoever, but I am disproving the assertion that it is history and not myth. Again, I am not disproving that there
are historical events outlined in the Bible that actually took place, but I am positing that we look at our teachings critically if we are to understand it even better. Why do I say the Bible is not history?
Let us look at the story of the flood. If it is history, the same story must have the same non-conflicting narrations of the event.
tual rains that are not the same. Te pres- entation and wording of the text about the rain is different. Te J tradition says that it rained for 40 days, beginning from the sev- enth day after the command to enter the ark. Te P tradition, on the other hand, talks of the waters continuing to increase over the earth for 150 days and the dura- tion of the flood being one year. Now if this was history, what would
be true, the 40 days’ rain or the one year? We must understand that like all myths, this story was written not for historical data but to express the religious ideas of the people of the Ancient Near East, such as God’s salvation for the world. Mandlenkosi Ncube
Johannesburg, South Africa
Woman power What a disappointment your article en- titled, “Woman Power” (NA, July) was. I bought the magazine (at London’s Stanst- ed airport) with an expectation of learning more about the leadership women provide in the transformation of the African con- tinent today. However, what I found was just a bunch of stereotypes and lame argu- ments provided in a very unbalanced way. Te lead article does not analyse the is-
sue of women’s participation in leadership in the contemporary Africa. Te author, Tom Mbakwe, does not care what women in leadership positions think and do. Similarly, we can see lots of colourful
pictures of First Ladies in the lead article, but we hardly learn anything about these Ladies, their contributions or roles. Lead- ership in his view is a male thing. And yes indeed, almost the entire lead article is about men and their urges! Unfortunately, even the subsequent
articles do not provide justice to the sub- ject of women and power. What we get in those pages are little bits of information on “some” First Ladies. What is worse, anything meaningful they have achieved is dwarfed by the lead article which has
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100