To The Daily Sun,
In response to E. Scott Cracraft's letter of April 8, "Biblical stories belong in Humanities class," Scott finds it hard to believe there are people who still oppose the teaching of biological evolution in our public schools. On the contrary, I find it appalling that every Christian is not up at arms about it.
The rule observed in science, that you cannot consider God's supernatural activity when studying science is neutral and works fine when you are examining nature in the present. It has the effect of focusing the scientist on nature and learning of nature so he does not get sidetracked to giving supernatural explanations of a thing, when he has the thing in front of him and it's his job to find out how it works. This is the reason it was instituted.
It takes on a whole new meaning and has a much different effect when it is applied to a theory that projects back into time and tries to tell us how things got to be as they are. In this case it is not neutral toward God. It is in outright opposition to Him. For if God is anything He is the creator. If God is our creator, then He did supernaturally create all things. Then it is appalling to use a methodology that excludes the consideration of the creator in a discipline that seeks to tell us how we got here.
To call macro evolution science is to say we are dealing with an actuality here, this is real and that biblical stories are myths, we all know that myths are merely fanciful stories that contain perhaps a grain of truth. To agree with Scott on this point, that evolution should be taught in science class and creation in humanities is to say, ya, evolution is fact and well God is mythological. Or that evolution is true and God, ya, well we don't know.
Now if this were just a matter of saying, "You know, we believe in God we just don't know that the Hebrew account is true," then why is there a refusal in the scientific community to acknowledge intelligent design? I'm a Christian and a Creationist, but it is my understanding that proponents of intelligent design are from many different faiths and most do not hold to the biblical creation account. But they see in the complexity of nature and of life the need for an intelligent designer. If this is not a rebellion against God, then why are proponents of intelligent design not received by the scientific community and the method of not considering God, even when trying to explain our origins, held to rigidly, stubbornly, and beyond reason?
Scott says creationists deny plate tectonics. I can't speak for other creationist's, but I am a firm believer in plate tectonics. I don't believe in the millions of years that scientists subscribe to, for the continents to have separated; yet plate tectonics is an observable scientific phenomenon that does happen and I believe it is a necessary fact in explaining how the Earth was repopulated after the flood. Also ring species could provide a solution to evolutionist objection to how Noah fitted all known species of animals on the ark. The answer is there weren't that many species back then.
Six thousand years or millions of years who was there except for God, to know?
If I choose to believe an account transcribed by men who had a peculiar inclination to meticulously transcribe an account given to them letter for letter stroke for stroke rather than scientists who will not admit that in this endeavor they have moved out of the area in which their method can be applied and are clearly in rebellion to and are running away from God; how is that not reasonable? Any time I've challenged a so-called evolutionist with the unobservableness of macro evolution, the conversation ends like this: It takes millions of years and you can't see it. They don't know. They're just believing what they were taught. It's not about if your view is reasonable or not. It's about peer pressure. They will laugh and snicker at you if you don't believe what they do.
Scott says, "It seems that a fundamentalist religious minority is trying to force its beliefs on our students and on the American public as 'science.'" Please, who is in authority in education in America today? And who is forcing whose children to be taught as truth a doctrine they do not believe and calling it science?
Scott commented on many other things, most of which are baloney, and because this letter has already gotten quite long I will not comment on them, but will end with this. Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 24:9, of His followers, "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name."
This is coming to a neighborhood near you. Yet those who hold fast their faith to the end will be vindicated when Jesus wins in the end, in a comeback that would make sports fans green with envy. Yes, Jesus is the answer.