Letters to the Editor
Writer wrong on creation discussion
POSTED: November 6, 2009
To the editor:
Recently, you published a letter in response to an invitation to celebrate the anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species. As the organizer of the event on Nov. 17 at 7 p.m. at Southwest Minnesota State University, I would like opportunity to retort this letter:
1. Sir, your evidence is as botched as science that says that the complex living organisms we see today sprang from non-life.
2. Ray Comfort did not edit the book, it is printed in its entirety. It is not butchered, unless the original author did so.
3. We are not hitting the road. All scientists are local, and have been invited despite their views, including all science professors at SMSU and at Marshall High School.
4. Your summary of Ken Hovind lacks credibility. The dismissal of scientific work, just because it includes God proves that you are not a true scientist, rather, it is you who are intellectually dishonest.
5. While you are picking your naval lint, people in the community and from SMSU will be having an open forum to discuss both points of view; special creation and evolution. Facts will be presented from both sides, and audience members will have the opportunity to ask questions, and give input. In the end, everybody will make up their own mind. That is what an open forum is all about, which is how it differs from a classroom where only one point of view is accepted.
Ultimately, It is evolutionists who do not want a dissenting point of view, because when true science is used, Evolution is exposed for the fairy tale that it is.
John Chisham
Marshall
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpacesMember Comments
View Comments: | 1-25 |26-40 | Post a comment
|
merioncooper
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-10-09 10:00 AM
|
RR: Please read my comments more fully. I said I believe that God created our world. The same holds true for Christ's sacrifice: I believe in it. And, actually, I am more inclined to believe in the accuracy/literalness of the Gospels since they were generally written in the decades or centuries just after Christ's death and in some cases record the words and acts of his major apostles -- those who knew him.
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-09-09 6:27 PM
|
Sorry about the spelling... I am having difficulty as a result severe pain.
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-09-09 6:25 PM
|
Vaughn~Respectfully, there has been dishonesty on both sides, in science and in the so called christian community... I like to think that I am educated enough and equipped with a good analytical mind sharpened by physics and math that I can dicide for myself when someone Christian or Secularist i stryin gtopull the wool over my eyes. Otherwise Vaughn I was impressed with your comments and insights. MC~ I also notice that over that same period of time how much our species has become more capable of self destruction, more "Efficiently" and "Effective "than ever!
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
11-09-09 4:58 PM
|
As far as two creation stories, many theologians state that they are two versions of the same creation story, with the second detailing the development of man in God's plan...it is the subject of many debates within the church. So, merion, do you think none of the Bible is meant to be taken literally -- like the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Christ, which is the whole point of the Christian faith?
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
11-09-09 4:47 PM
|
merion, you are referring to microevolution, which is change within a species and I think 99 percent of us agree this takes place. Yes, humans have changed, even in the last 50 years: diet, climate, technology, medicine and vitamins all have weighed into that. I think what the dispute ultimately comes down to is macroevolution, or evolving from one species to another -- not debating it just stating where I think the ultimate disagreement lies.
|
|
Vaughn
|
|
|
11-09-09 4:37 PM
|
WhiteKnight: I want to return to a point I was attempting to make on the other thread that you mentioned over here: the limits of science. Science has only one tool at its disposal - the scientific method. As with any tool, it has finite power. Science is silent on God because our one tool is not POWERFUL enough to study God (not because we have no interest in God). God is supernatural while the scientific method cannot go beyond the natural. Is there a way to extend science into the supernatural? As my colleague just mentioned to me, we could if someone invents a "God-o-Meter" capable of bridging that natural/supernatural divide. No one has, therefore, science HAS to be silent about God. To do otherwise would be dishonest and I think you are starting to get an idea about my reaction to dishonesty. :-)
|
|
Vaughn
|
|
|
11-09-09 4:03 PM
|
merioncooper: very eloquent comments. Kudos to you.
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-09-09 11:44 AM
|
MC et alia~ You all have submitted Bona Fide comments worthhwile and thoughtful and much to consider. I shall do just that, but first things first and then I will respond. I enjoy thie immensely as I believe in rational,CIVIL,dialogue between us is necessary for us to "evolve" to a hihger understanding of He who created us.
|
|
merioncooper
|
|
|
11-09-09 10:05 AM
|
sets. But even many pastors don't think the Genesis and Exodus stories are literal descriptions of the origins of the earth: Many other civilizations and faiths had their own creation stories, and it's probable the early Hebrews tailored theirs — with God's help — to rebut or prevail over other creation stories. At any rate, the Genesis creation stories (yes, there are TWO versions and they differ) take up 1 chapter plus eight verses of the entire Bible, and vague on the details. So again, it's my belief and that of many others within those details, God also triggered the process of evolution. If we share genetic traits with apes, if there is a common relative someone back on the evolutionary tree, so what? I think God made it that way, and it serves us very poorly to fight or prevent the studies of science when they can lead to medical/scientific/genetic discoveries that improve our lives today.
|
|
merioncooper
|
|
|
11-09-09 9:58 AM
|
White Knight: One more thing, I don't know that you can reasonably/rationally say that what we have now is the "finished product." Again, simple measurements of height, weight, age, the speed at which men and women run, has been precisely recorded for centuries, and humans of 2009 are vastly different in shape and other physical qualities than they were of 1709: Bigger, faster, stronger, living longer. Imagine what our forebears in the year 209 were like, and imagine what they will be like in 2309. All species EVOLVE. This is not theory, this is fact, and it is not incongruous that they have evolved from the beings that God initially made. Again, the Bible — if you want to take it literally — records God's own ongoing efforts to impose evolution on his people in Genesis and Exodus and after: With the flood, he wipes out entire races of people. Same with when he puts his patriarchs on the move: Whole groups of distinct tribes/family lines are eliminated, so are their genetic
|
|
merioncooper
|
|
|
11-09-09 9:51 AM
|
I believe God created our world and others, and like Edmund, I believe that within that creation there was a process that became and is evolution. Certainly, a God so intelligent and all-powerful to create the universe could create something as complex and ever-changing as the evolutionary process. Creationists/Intelligent Designers short-change God's abilities by limiting him to just those initial snaps of the fingers. Even if you read Genesis in its most literal terms, in Genesis 1, the animals existed before man was even created: So, we came after the animals that crawled out of the water, after the birds, after, yes, the apes!
|
|
merioncooper
|
|
|
11-09-09 9:44 AM
|
White Knight, "adaptation" is essentially at the core of evolution: Through breeding, genetic mutation, survival of those genetically mutated in various environmental circumstances (cold, heat, skin toxic to certain predators) enables their ensuing line to endure, while others die out. It's not only the archeological or fossilic records that prove this, but even ongoing scientific studies today — including two recently reported on NPR about a controlled 45 year experiment to remove predatory tendencies from a fox species, and an accidental, but observed, wiping out of violent alpha males in a baboon troop.
|
|
JBSnyder
|
|
|
11-09-09 9:24 AM
|
John, A few problems here. 1. Evolution has nothing to do with life springing from non-life, it has to do with diversity of life. 2. Ray Comfort did edit The Origin of Species. I have a copy of his version in front of me, and it's missing chapter 7 (the chapter where Darwin responds to his critics). 3. Regarding including god in science, can you propose a test or evidence that would falsify god?
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-09-09 1:02 AM
|
JMT~The question you ask seems plausible at first glance, it is known as "Theistic Evolution".Darwinian evolution is predicated on materialistic and observable processes by means of "Natural(random)Selection" etc.This means that organisms developed from simpler forms that arose, ultimately, from non-living matter to more complex organisms incuding Man. Darwinian evolution ipso facto, is therefore, mutually exclusive of Theistic Evolution by definition. God would not need "trial and error" to bring forth life after creating the heavens and the Earth from nothing, if as you say, He is omnipotent, and omniscient.Vaughn has already made it clear that if we admit God into the discussion, then it is no longer science and therein lies the controversey.But I'm sure you already knew this.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
11-08-09 10:57 PM
|
Interesting comment, justmy...
|
|
justmythoughts
|
|
|
11-08-09 4:28 PM
|
I wish I were a creationalist....then I wouldn't have to worry about the H1N1 flu. There would be no evolution, and this new strain wouldn't be here. If God is all powerful, why couldn't he have created the earth through evolution if he wanted to? Only God knows how he created the world and the real question is not HOW he did it, but why man keeps wasting his time by arguing something that has not yet been revealed to him.
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-07-09 7:06 PM
|
Ed~Perhaps I owe you an apology. I did not calrify how I was using the term "Intelligent Design" as opposed to "Evolution" as I did in reponse to Vaughn Gehle's article November 5... if you would review those relplies you will have a better understanding of where I'm coming from, sorry I didn't make that distinction here as well.
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-07-09 11:44 AM
|
Apprently ED you missed the point I made earlier.... the Intelligent Designer made you "perfect" but, by your choice(s) you are making yourself "horribly imperfect" (your words)
|
|
ClancyR
|
|
|
11-07-09 10:11 AM
|
It appears that the Creationists are once again repackaging their theory under a new label. What started as "Creationism" morphed to "Intelligent Design" when the Creationists tried to force their way into the public schools. Mr. Chisham (in point 5) now uses the term "special creation." It's interesting to note that when the Dover, PA, school board tried to force their science teachers to present Intelligent Design to their students in 2004, parents of the district took the school board to court in order to stop the practice of teaching religion the school. The board maintained that Intelligent Design was not the old Creationism, but a NEW scientific theory. A Bush appointed federal judge heard the case and ruled against the Board and the Creationists. The Creationists not only lost their case, but they were found to have committed perjury in their testimony. Google "Intelligent Design on Trial" to watch the trial highlights,a compilation of t
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
11-07-09 8:19 AM
|
EF, you need to finish reading that line -- I said the Genesis account is clear on ONE THING: God created the heavens and the earth. Go back and check the post. It does not get into specifics on how long the days were nor was it meant to. It is centered solely on God creating the earth.
|
|
EdmundFitzgerald
|
|
|
11-07-09 7:37 AM
|
Are you perhaps ashamed that your Designer created me? Am I horribly imperfect?
|
|
EdmundFitzgerald
|
|
|
11-07-09 7:35 AM
|
I have "more of a problem". I take an "abrupt" tone. It's all part of your Intelligent Designer's master plan! Since you spend so much time defending The Designer’s work, why don’t you understand The Designer’s reason?
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-07-09 6:05 AM
|
Ed~ It appears that you have more of a problem than I do,I really don't understand why you take the tone that you do. However, you answered a question I didn't ask.
|
|
EdmundFitzgerald
|
|
|
11-07-09 1:31 AM
|
Why do I choose to have a difference of opinion with “Intelligent Design”? Obviously, it’s because your “Intelligent Designer” chose TO CREATE ME TO DISAGREE WITH YOU! Do you have a problem with that?
|
|
WhiteKnight68
|
|
|
11-07-09 12:52 AM
|
With respect to your last post ED, If evolution is true how can we rely on the means and methods by which they use to determine the age of their Archeological findings? Suerly, what evidence is there to support the contention the the laws governing decay remained "fixed" and did not ALSO evolve? Perhaps linear in one Epoch, then non linear in another epoch, but not yet exponential until So called millions of years had elasped, then exponential or logarithmic?
|