Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor:
I contemplated writing a letter in response to Charles Porter's recent assertion Darwin was totally correct when he proposed the Theory of Evolution. One gains a different perspective for consideration of evolution versus creation from the geologic record as compared to the mechanisms applied in the life sciences. I gained such a perspective way back in the late 1950s when I was taking historical geology and Bible literature during the same year at Occidental College.
Genesis 1 and 2 present somewhat different accounts of creation, something which was attributed to the accepted concept at that time there were five authors who contributed to the Book of Genesis. It was amazing to me Genesis 1 and 2, when compiled as a single unit, described the fundamental sequence of life as seen through the geologic record.
The problem then became the question of time. If taken literally, the seven days described through the rising and setting of the sun just did not fit the geologic record of time. However, the Bible literature professor noted our concept of days, weeks, months and years as components of time did not exist during the time of Genesis. Therefore it was thought the reference to the rising and the setting of the sun was meant only to convey the passage of time and not specific days of a week.
This allowed me to embrace the perspective evolution is nothing more than science trying to explain the process by which God created life. The evolutionary terms “natural selection,” “mutation,” “survival of the fittest,” etc., are just labels for the processes of creation.
Jeremy Cessac's recent letter refuting the concept evolution and creation are one and the same thing cites the attempts which are continually being made to define life as evolving from inorganic matter. Fifty years ago that was a big unknown, and despite the ability to find smaller life forms in ancient rocks through those fifty years, I am unaware of any definite evidence in the geologic record which indicates the earliest life forms originated from inorganic matter. Perhaps some day such a link might be found, but if that is found to be a process of creation, doesn't that glorify God even more?
People are vastly more knowledgeable now than were the people of Biblical times. Attempting to explain the magnificent complexity of creation would have been impossible before and during the time of Christ. As Cessac's letter demonstrates, even without modern knowledge of life we still have those who cannot accept the idea creation and evolution are one and the same set of processes which brings greater glory to God.
Respectfully,
Edmond E. Bates Jr.
Dear Editor:
I thank the sheriffs' deputies who helped me Tuesday. They changed my tire in the pouring rain.
I'm sure they don't get thanked enough for all they do.
Dale Baker
I contemplated writing a letter in response to Charles Porter's recent assertion Darwin was totally correct when he proposed the Theory of Evolution. One gains a different perspective for consideration of evolution versus creation from the geologic record as compared to the mechanisms applied in the life sciences. I gained such a perspective way back in the late 1950s when I was taking historical geology and Bible literature during the same year at Occidental College.
Genesis 1 and 2 present somewhat different accounts of creation, something which was attributed to the accepted concept at that time there were five authors who contributed to the Book of Genesis. It was amazing to me Genesis 1 and 2, when compiled as a single unit, described the fundamental sequence of life as seen through the geologic record.
The problem then became the question of time. If taken literally, the seven days described through the rising and setting of the sun just did not fit the geologic record of time. However, the Bible literature professor noted our concept of days, weeks, months and years as components of time did not exist during the time of Genesis. Therefore it was thought the reference to the rising and the setting of the sun was meant only to convey the passage of time and not specific days of a week.
This allowed me to embrace the perspective evolution is nothing more than science trying to explain the process by which God created life. The evolutionary terms “natural selection,” “mutation,” “survival of the fittest,” etc., are just labels for the processes of creation.
Jeremy Cessac's recent letter refuting the concept evolution and creation are one and the same thing cites the attempts which are continually being made to define life as evolving from inorganic matter. Fifty years ago that was a big unknown, and despite the ability to find smaller life forms in ancient rocks through those fifty years, I am unaware of any definite evidence in the geologic record which indicates the earliest life forms originated from inorganic matter. Perhaps some day such a link might be found, but if that is found to be a process of creation, doesn't that glorify God even more?
People are vastly more knowledgeable now than were the people of Biblical times. Attempting to explain the magnificent complexity of creation would have been impossible before and during the time of Christ. As Cessac's letter demonstrates, even without modern knowledge of life we still have those who cannot accept the idea creation and evolution are one and the same set of processes which brings greater glory to God.
Respectfully,
Edmond E. Bates Jr.
Dear Editor:
I thank the sheriffs' deputies who helped me Tuesday. They changed my tire in the pouring rain.
I'm sure they don't get thanked enough for all they do.
Dale Baker
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of rockportpilot.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
