Hatred and venom
To the editor:
Add my name to what I am sure is the growing list of those
outraged that the News-Press would print such a hateful and
insulting diatribe as Mr. Blomberg’s!
I would like to call the readers’ attention to Mr. Blomberg’s
letter to show the hatred and venom that persists toward those who
call themselves Christians and/or Creationists. We are the last
taboo! I would venture to say that a racist remark would not be
tolerated, nor would a derogatory remark against a homosexual. But
those who believe in God are derided as akin to the Taliban. To
compare us (who I might add are intelligent, thoughtful people) to
the likes of the Taliban is insulting at least and frightening at
most. I am quite surprised, too, that the News-Press would run such
a scathing article; I guess even this is protected by our
wonderful, yet tortured, First Amendment.
If Mr. Blomberg would take time to read noted scientists and
professors who believe the creation theory is plausible, he might
not make such caustic and insulting comments such as this:
“Creationists are more than just an embarrassing example of people
who failed to learn the basics of the scientific method. Time was,
those people simply got poor marks in science, math and probably a
few other subjects to boot and went on with their lives form
there.” Well, Mr. Blomberg, you might have to include some
extremely intelligent and knowledgeable scientists in that
statement!
We could argue from now until doomsday about the “facts.” But I
really don’t believe that is what’s behind the venomous arguments
Mr. Blomberg presents. I believe the reason so many evolutionists
are insulting and hateful in their arguments is that they want to
distance themselves from any discussion of God. Why?!
We have replaced the idea of a creator with the “religion” of
evolution. It’s merely a theory, yet taught as fact! As a taxpayer
this enrages me! We constantly hear the mantra “separation of
church and state,” yet the state has perpetrated its own religion
on us, and it is humanism, of which evolution is a part!
Creation can be taught in an intelligent and thoughtful way,
without establishing a “religion.” What a great disservice we have
done to our children!
An evolutionist chooses, by faith, to believe that order simply
came from chaos by accident. I choose, by faith, to believe that an
intelligent creator put it all into order. Look at the symmetry and
precision in nature! A simple reducing of the speed at which the
Earth rotates would have a devastating effect of temperatures. If
the moon were closer, it would have a devastating effect on the
tides. But all these are in perfect order.
Whatever we believe, that’s faith. But I see the evidence of the
hand of God every day. When I walk out on my front porch, I see the
awesome majesty of the mountains, the footstool of God. My faith is
based on fact, however! A living, personal God who created the
world in perfect order.
Mr. Blomberg, do you know 100 percent of everything there is to
know? Is it possible that in the percentage of what you don’t know,
God might exist, and he might have created the Earth and all that
is in it? Is it possible that he exists today and is active in the
world? Is it possible?!
Susan Hettinger
Castle Rock
Some right, some wrong
To the editor:
Bill Blomberg’s intemperate commentary titled “Creationists’
science is nonsense” on page 6A of the April 17 issue of the
News-Press and the April 18 issue of The Parker Chronicle deserves
another response.
Though some of his points are correct, some aren’t. He correctly
points out that evolution does not address the question of how life
began, and rightly points out that the “Big Bang” has little or
nothing to do with evolution.
And he points out that theories of evolution have come and
gone.
I wish he would have mentioned the controversy among
evolutionists about Darwinism (random gene mutation followed by
natural selection). Many leading evolutionists and mathematicians
now say that the Darwin mechanism cannot account for the many
distinct families of plants and animals existing today.
Mr. Blomberg has a limited concept of science as well as of
creationism. For example, he incorrectly equates natural selection
with evolution. He needs to define his use of “creationist.” He
[along with many others] seems to think there is only one variety,
whereas there are several. (I mention some of these in a short
piece in the April 25 issue of The Parker Chronicle.)
Perhaps most Bible-believers take creation simply as a matter of
faith, true but not provable. They follow science and are reassured
about discoveries that the universe had a beginning, which implies
a beginner. They are interested in recent books and articles
discussing “intelligent design,” and are impressed by the arguments
about “irreducible complexity” being a problem for evolutionary
ideas.
Some of them want to establish a “scientific” base for a
creation accomplished in six 24-hour days and for a later worldwide
flood. These are the ones whom Mr. Blomberg is apparently talking
about.
The founders and leaders of organizations promoting these
efforts, and there are several such organizations, have stated that
“creation science” is not science in its usually accepted meaning
(creationism trial, Arkansas, 1981).
“Creation scientists” trying to provide a basis for what they
believe to be true should not be faulted for that. Let them develop
testable theories. They have acknowledged that you can’t use
science to prove a supernatural event.
But I think that what those “creationists” mean is that some
evidences or explanations can be produced to support Biblical
accounts, even if the creative act cannot be proved.
If they develop testable theories that are proven to be wrong,
those theories will be abandoned. (Although in the history of
science, an incorrect theory is often not abandoned until its
originator dies.)
And if they develop theories that cannot be tested, then they
have to admit they’ve proposed something based on faith; those
aren’t scientific theories.
Mr. Blomberg correctly infers that the “creation scientists”
look at the geological strata, the fossil bones, etc., then attempt
to explain what they see based on what they already know to be the
truth. He asserts that this “working backward” is
anti-scientific.
“Working backward” is pretty common in the scientific
establishment. A scientist has a hunch, an idea, a prejudice and
works to confirm it. Johannes Kepler (400 years ago) is one
example. He held a mystical belief in heavenly order and became
convinced that there had to be a connection between the five
perfect solids of Plato and the five known planets.
He convinced the astronomer Tycho Brahe, who had made detailed
observations of the positions of planets, to hire him so he could
confirm this. His first ideas didn’t work, but Kepler kept working,
convinced of some underlying simplicity in the motion of the
planets, and eventually established what we now call Kepler’s
Laws.
Mr. Blomberg evidently thinks it’s bad science to try to debunk
another’s theory. But it happens all the time among scientists.
That’s how the bad theories get culled out or modified.
Mr. Blomberg says that the “creationists” he has heard of have a
wholesale ignorance of evolution. He could say the same thing of
the population at large. Probably most people who believe the
Biblical account of creation do not deny the type of evolution
observed in selective breeding, and contrary to Mr. Blomberg’s
assertion, they accept that selective breeding can be accomplished
by the environment as well as by people, though not as
efficiently.
But they are unwilling to take the leap from this
“microevolution” to “macroevolution.” They are not ready to accept
that little changes lead to big changes. (The Galapagos finches of
Darwin are still finches.)
They are aware of instances of fraud in the evolutionary
establishment, both old and recent. They are aware of over-zealous
promotion of evolution based on the most recent findings, resulting
in claims that often have to be retracted or modified. And so they
are suspicious of what evolutionists say.
Mr. Blomberg’s polemic accusing “creationists” of being the way
they are because they got poor marks in math and science in school
is way off base. False accusations like that harm understanding of
the issues.
What we need are frank and honest discussions on both sides,
free from hyperbole.
Robert L. Peterson, Ph.D.