No Reason To Change

Advertisement

Editor:

What a great world this would be if people were to respond to (the May 10) editorial the same way you have responded to so much they have said in the past — with low-key, well-reasoned and constructive comments.

Here’s my response, for what it may be worth: I see no reason for you to change a thing. In the first place your responses to letters have been quite rare, and when occasionally made have been calm, accurate, and on target.

Creationism, which seems to have spawned the current flack is, or should be, a non-issue. No scientist — at least none that I no of — claims that evolution is a disproof of anything in the Bible. So where lies the conflict? When Moses sat down to write Genesis, as is believed by many biblical scholars, he had no choice but to describe Genesis in the terms available to him. I personally believe he did a rather inspiring job.

When a scientist sits down to consider a question, he also has no choice but to use the terms available to him. Scientists once wrote of “phlogiston” to explain burning. They believed that all materials

contained phlogiston, and when a material burned it released its phlogiston into the air. It seemed to make sense because the amount of burned material was always less than the original — as wood ashes are always less than the wood consumed. Air which had been used to burn something, and which would no longer support combustion was called “de-phlogisticated air.”

We know better now. Why?

Because someone noted something about the weight of burned materials that were fired in a closed space, namely that they weighed more after they burned than they did before. That was the first step of the scientific method — observation. The next step was to propose a hypothesis that explained the observation. The hypothesis was simple: a material being burned adds something to itself rather than losing something. Then the third step was taken — experiment. Materials were burned under controlled conditions and it was found that they did, indeed, gain weight. Then a theory was written — and here’s the critical part — many more observations and experiments were proposed; their purpose being to prove the theory. The observations were made. The experiments were done. The theory was proven. A scientific theory, then, is not merely a hypothesis; it is something which has been tested and proven. That does not mean that it is intended to remain forever unchanged. As time goes on, a theory may be amended to include more information or modified to be more descriptive, but no proven theory has ever been refuted. A theory is not a mere guess.

However — and this is the critical

point — it is improper to take the word “theory” as it is used in common everyday life, and stretch its meaning to be “scientific theory.” In everyday terms, “theory” means “hypothesis,” or educated guess.

For creationism to rise to the level of a theory, experiments and observations would have to be proposed which would prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the correct description of the method of creation and those experiments would have to be done, and the proof gathered.

However, to a Christian all this is moot. The Bible is accepted on faith, not on proof of its every tenet. There is no need of proof. Furthermore no amount of so-called “proof” can change faith. I could give you a dozen examples right off the top of my head.

There is an easy way for science and religion to be at peace. Here it is: The universe runs on the laws of math and physics. Ask yourself, “Who created those laws?” Then ask yourself this: “Why would He not work His wonders through the use of His own laws?”

Since evolution is nothing more than the application of the laws of math and physics in explanation of yet another aspect of the wonders we see around us, why all the flack?

Tom Garrett

Comments

frederick franz 1 year, 6 months ago

Editor: Please continue your even-handed editing. It's the religious group which believes in proselytizing and evangelism who would censor all discussions about the theory of evolution. Your open minded editing makes it possible for rampant free speech. It makes it a delight to read the Roundup.

0

don evans 1 year, 6 months ago

Wait a minute. How many words in Tom's post above??? Just kidding Tom. Great post. Editor: I don't think you need to tweak anything on your letters policy. If it's to personal nasty you won't print it. Let the Lions roar and the Ostrich bury their heads. It work's....

0

Robbin Flowers 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree with you, and guess who gave us the ability of science?

0

Pete Greer 1 year, 6 months ago

Mr. Garret, there have been many scientists who regard the Theory of Evolution as definitive proof that life can exist without God or the creation account in the Bible. Richard Dawkins is world renown for his outspoken views on this. Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan also held this view. Before evolution became widely known Ernesto Haeckle said he would rather believe in the recently (in his time) disproved theory of spontaneous generation even though he knew it couldn't be true, than to let a Divine Foot in the door. There is a segment of scientists who are intentionally out to show the Bible to be false. Creationists have done scientific research using the requirements you have proposed to show that the Bible's account of creation is the correct one. The RATE Research Project was an 8 year study conducted by a team of PHD scientists who published 1500 pages of research report to show their findings. There are 2 creation research journals that you can refer to for further verification that these scientists do their research in the manner accepted by the scientific community at large. They are Research Quarterly, put out by the Institute of Creation Research, and the Technical Journal, easily accessed through the Answers In Genesis web site. People will not find out about these things in our culture unless someone makes them known. That is my goal. I can't do that if I allow people to persist in sweeping a valid scientific theory under the rug and out of view simply because they are not educated in the constructs of the theory or the research that supports it. I agree that for Christians this is a moot point. But there are others that think evolution has disproved the Bible and in order to get them to consider the reality that biblical truth and the validity of the scriptures can be verified through scientific research and every day observations this defense must be made. The Christian is also exhorted in scripture to give a defense of the hope that is within us. I would be glad to give my personal testimony but in this forum I am trying to show the validity of a scientific theory that is denied without scientific cause. To me, and other believers who hold to the literal view of Genesis, this is a big deal and is foundational to a fundamental understanding of the Creator God. If you have read my letters to Mr Aleshire you have seen the reasons I see that Darwin's Theory of Evolution contradicts many of the accepted laws and theories of science.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.