By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Your Views: One cannot mix 2 scientific theories of godly creation
Placeholder Image
Letters may be sent to letters@gainesvilletimes.com; sent by fax to 770-532-0457; or mailed to The Times, P.O. Box 838, Gainesville, GA 30503. Please include full name, hometown and phone number. Letters must be confirmed before being considered for publication. They should be limited to one topic on issues of public interest and may be edited for content, grammar, spelling and length. Letters written by or forwarded from other sources and those involving personal matters, business disputes, expressions of faith or memorial tributes may be rejected. You may be limited to one letter every two weeks. Letters and articles submitted may be published in print, electronic or other forms. Letters, columns and cartoons express the opinions of the authors and not The Times.

I would like to respond to Joan King's column, "Nature of being relies on evolution." I am very concerned with her column and especially her statement, "We can't accept the gifts of science - modern medicine, all the benefits of biological research in other fields - and reject evolution."

She is asserting that biblical creation used evolution to make nature as we see it today. This raises serious questions. Is this really an issue of religion vs. science, or is it the historical science of one religion vs. the historical science of another religion? What are the philosophical presuppositions of each side, and can we mix the two?

We have two types of science. One is observational science, where we see the benefits of biological research, DNA testing, new medicines, space shuttles, etc. All scientists believe in this type of science, whether they believe in biblical creation, creationists, or whether they believe in millions of years, evolutionists.

The other type of science is historical science where facts are interpreted about the past. This is the science King is writing about, and we should not mix the interpretations.

We have men who were not present when the universe was made interpreting facts outside of biblical history. Darwin knew if he could explain the past without this biblical history - hence, without God - that people would not be held accountable to God and could justify their wrong actions. If man makes the rules, he can justify abortion, pornography, the issue of gay marriage, etc.

People loved this idea, and even the church embraced this idea by saying that God used evolution to create. Or we have God who was there, who has given us the history of these events in Genesis.

The problem is the two interpretations do not mix. God said He made the earth before the sun, but evolution says the sun was made before the earth. God said He made man from dust, and He breathed life into man, and from man He made a woman. But evolution says man evolved from matter (even though no evolutionist can tell you how nonlife matter can suddenly change into life-matter) into other forms, eventually into ape-like creatures, into our present state, and we are continuing to evolve today.

Based on these two interpretations, who has it wrong? What do you tell your children when they read columns like King's and ask you, "Dad, did God get it wrong?" There is no fence straddling with the creation and evolution issue, and you absolutely must not mix the two.

We must be prepared for an all-out assault on God's word in 2009 when the humanists and even some churches plan to celebrate Darwin's 200th birthday.

God says, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters."

Neal Brewer
Flowery Branch

Regional events