Editor’S Note To Greer Disappointing



I was disappointed in your perceived need to respond to Pete Greer’s letter to the editor on creationism.

I am a professional biologist and was taught throughout my academic and professional career about the “THEORY” of evolution. And much like your response to Mr. Greer’s editorial, the creation theory was ridiculed and dismissed as religious folly.

Over the years, I began to question evolution, as I could find no evidence, using the Scientific Method for evolution (unlike your baseless comment on evolution as fact). Currently there is a movement among the scientific community for the theory of “Intelligent Design” — scientists’ name for creationism as they don’t want to recognize God’s involvement.

Finally for those who cling to the evolution theory, or the big-bang theory, I ask one question: “Where did the stuff or ooze or whatever you wish to call it, that originally started the whole thing, come from? I might suggest you start reading in Genesis 1:1 for your answer.

Tom Lister


Pete Greer 3 years, 10 months ago

Mr. editor, I would like to show you a few conflicts between man's word (represented by the microbe to man Theory of Evolution) and God's Word (a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1). Evolution states that dinosaurs came before birds and Genesis says that birds came before land animals. Evolution says that the sun existed before plants and Genesis says that plants came before the sun. Evolution says that marine creatures came before land plants and Genesis says that land plants came before marine creatures. These are just 3 of many examples that demonstrate that a person must choose who to believe. These statements are in direct conflict, they cannot be reconciled with one another. One quick example for the Big Bang is that it states that the sun was created before the earth while Genesis states that the earth was created before the sun. One statement is true and one is false. We must choose who to believe. The concept of kinds stated in Genesis 1 (ten different times) stands today as a truth that has never been negated by OBSERVATIONAL science. As you have mentioned, science is continually revising theories as new evidence is discovered, but this foundational truth of biblical creationism has never had to be revised as scientists have never OBSERVED one kind of living thing giving rise to another. (Kind is usually on the level of family in the human classification system.) This gives me great confidence as a believer in God's Word as opposed to man's word. I do teach basic genetics to older children in Sunday School at the appropriate time so they can understand the simple difference between the biblical view and what they learn in the public school classroom. There is a boundary placed by the Creator God and shown to man in Genesis 1 beyond which no created kind has gone or will go. That is a prediction that is based on my creationist view that still holds today. The Biology books will tell them that the changes which occur for adaptation (which are observed) leads to one kind of animal becoming another (which has not been observed). This is truth that should be taught in all classrooms even if its origin is in the Bible. What does a creationist have to do to be considered scientific rather than religious? Time and again you mention the overwhelming evidence for the Theory of Evolution. The overwhelming evidence lies in the observations of adaptation. The alleged fact that these adaptations lead to a microbe becoming all living things is an evolutionary assumption that is not verified by observational science.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.