Whoa Nellie, Darwin, creation both based in faith

Published 8:59 pm Wednesday, November 25, 2009

To the Editor:

Whoops. Re: Letter to the Editor, Nov. 16, 2009, Criticism should apply without prejudice, by Jim Cooper, I certainly agree with that title in fact and in principle, but I believe that in order for that to work, we need to define whether we are dealing with facts, and if so, the discussion should be with understanding and not presented as facts.


Sign up for our daily email newsletter

Get the latest news sent to your inbox

Mr. Cooper stated, the evolutionary process as described by Darwin and Wallace in the late nineteenth century is intelligent design. By what authority is God precluded from using natural selection as the vehicle of His creation? Whoa Nellie. That sentence and the question are both playing fast and loose with the facts.

First, the idea of adding the concept of design to the theory of evolution has just been floated in the last two or three decades as a rationale, it seems to me, to make evolution more palatable in the face of mounting evidence that the theory cant be true.

Darwin certainly never incorporated the concept of design in any of his writings that I have ever seen. His theory was always based on accidental change because of happenstance or need. But I wouldnt have gotten all excited if that sentence had been the only problem in the letter.

The question about Gods using natural selection is what prompts me to write this letter. The answer to the question is, God himself in His word, the Bible, is the authority that precludes God from using natural selection as the vehicle of His creation.

The creation account in Genesis consistently says that God created all living things, plant and animal, according to their kinds. That means He created all of His defined kinds back at the beginning of their existence, and today they are the same as when He created them. Dogs were dogs then and they are still dogs. We have hundreds of varieties of dogs, but we know they are still dogs because we can mate any dog with any other dog and still get a dog.

Sterility is the delimiting factor by which we can see the impassible boundary of the kinds. Men attempt to push the issue by trying to create hybrids that go beyond what Gods genetic laws allow, but their efforts always fail.

For example, when they cross a horse and a donkey, both members of the horse family, the resulting mule is sterile, unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Thats why we dont see pastures full of mules, mating and reproducing.

Same thing with roses or azaleas. They can produce an endless variety of plant hybrids, but only within the boundaries of the kinds. Dont hold your breath until they cross a rose bush with an apple tree. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit, the distinctiveness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54). This still remains true.

Mr. Cooper then follows up with this thought: Gods role in the universe is a matter of faith, not science. Whoa Nellie again. Think: absolutely all of the laws that govern the universe and everything in it are also creations of God.

Mans scientists are trying their best to learn about Gods laws, but they certainly are not able to create any new laws of their own, so that makes God the Master Scientist, and men can only scratch the surface of understanding His laws of science.

A modern English rendering of the Bible at Romans 11:33 says, O the depth of Gods riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgements are, and past tracing out his ways are! For who has come to know Jehovahs mind, or who has become his counselor?

Mr. Cooper is correct though with the idea that belief in creation is a matter of faith. What he hasnt realized yet is that belief in evolution also is a matter of faith. Evolution is a religion just like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are all religions.

Think back: In all of our science classes in school we were taught about the scientific method, and how true science is that which has been or can be observed and that which can be duplicated by other scientists than the one proposing the hypothesis.

Since no human alive today was there to observe any act of creation, and creation cannot be duplicated today, that means we have to develop faith to believe the creation account by considering and evaluating all of the evidence the Bible provides.

However, since no human alive today was there to observe any event of evolution, and evolution cannot be duplicated today, that means we have to develop faith to believe the evolution accounts by considering and evaluating all of the evidence Darwin and the scientists provide.

I am sure Mr. Cooper is happy in his faith and his religious beliefs, just like I am happy in my faith and my religious beliefs, but there is a large problem I have noticed between the evidence that my religion considers and evaluates, and the evidence that the evolution religion considers and evaluates.

My religion considers all of the evidence that is provided both by the Bible and by all the scientific findings of a large body of dedicated scientists. Considering all of that evidence leads me to conclude that we got here by the hand of a wise, powerful, and loving Creator.

But when those in the evolution religion dismiss Gods role in the universe as a matter of faith, not science, doesnt that mean that they are not considering at least half of the evidence that is available to consider, and therefore cannot come to any proper conclusion because they arent looking at the complete picture?

Isnt that just what Mr. Cooper was complaining about in his letter, namely according to his next to last paragraph, Shouldnt each and every subject being taught…be scrutinized for fair, accurate and unbiased content?

Ken Roberts