What a great world this would be if people were to respond to (the May 10) editorial the same way you have responded to so much they have said in the past — with low-key, well-reasoned and constructive comments.
Here’s my response, for what it may be worth: I see no reason for you to change a thing. In the first place your responses to letters have been quite rare, and when occasionally made have been calm, accurate, and on target.
Creationism, which seems to have spawned the current flack is, or should be, a non-issue. No scientist — at least none that I no of — claims that evolution is a disproof of anything in the Bible. So where lies the conflict? When Moses sat down to write Genesis, as is believed by many biblical scholars, he had no choice but to describe Genesis in the terms available to him. I personally believe he did a rather inspiring job.
When a scientist sits down to consider a question, he also has no choice but to use the terms available to him. Scientists once wrote of “phlogiston” to explain burning. They believed that all materials
contained phlogiston, and when a material burned it released its phlogiston into the air. It seemed to make sense because the amount of burned material was always less than the original — as wood ashes are always less than the wood consumed. Air which had been used to burn something, and which would no longer support combustion was called “de-phlogisticated air.”
We know better now. Why?
Because someone noted something about the weight of burned materials that were fired in a closed space, namely that they weighed more after they burned than they did before. That was the first step of the scientific method — observation. The next step was to propose a hypothesis that explained the observation. The hypothesis was simple: a material being burned adds something to itself rather than losing something. Then the third step was taken — experiment. Materials were burned under controlled conditions and it was found that they did, indeed, gain weight. Then a theory was written — and here’s the critical part — many more observations and experiments were proposed; their purpose being to prove the theory. The observations were made. The experiments were done. The theory was proven. A scientific theory, then, is not merely a hypothesis; it is something which has been tested and proven. That does not mean that it is intended to remain forever unchanged. As time goes on, a theory may be amended to include more information or modified to be more descriptive, but no proven theory has ever been refuted. A theory is not a mere guess.
However — and this is the critical
point — it is improper to take the word “theory” as it is used in common everyday life, and stretch its meaning to be “scientific theory.” In everyday terms, “theory” means “hypothesis,” or educated guess.
For creationism to rise to the level of a theory, experiments and observations would have to be proposed which would prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the correct description of the method of creation and those experiments would have to be done, and the proof gathered.
However, to a Christian all this is moot. The Bible is accepted on faith, not on proof of its every tenet. There is no need of proof. Furthermore no amount of so-called “proof” can change faith. I could give you a dozen examples right off the top of my head.
There is an easy way for science and religion to be at peace. Here it is: The universe runs on the laws of math and physics. Ask yourself, “Who created those laws?” Then ask yourself this: “Why would He not work His wonders through the use of His own laws?”
Since evolution is nothing more than the application of the laws of math and physics in explanation of yet another aspect of the wonders we see around us, why all the flack?