I read the Bible literally but realize some of what I read I do not
understand. I emphasize those aspects of Scripture that are unequivocal and
do not waste time with those that are equivocal. Of course, I learn from
others who are more knowledgeable but there are areas of Scripture that are
definitely obscure. The Genesis account of creation my not be accepted for
publication in The Physical Review. However, the one who one day knows how
everything came into being may indicate that the Genesis account is
consistent with the actual history of the universe.
The attitude of discerning the difficult from the simple is constantly done
in science when one chooses some area of research. One picks a doable
project. For instance, it may be foolish to dedicate your time to attempt to
solve the problem of the nature of spacetime. It may be that we are not at
the historical period when such a problem is amenable to solutions.
I think the Bible, since it deals with everything, is much more difficult
than the study of nature and one must recognize the areas that are hard to
understand. What is clear in the Bible is that Christ is the Son of God and
He is the only bridge that links man to God. I enclose a letter I wrote to
our local newspaper that will be appearing soon and which may help you. Let
us hope the editor does not omit any parts of my letter.
EDITOR: Your editorial, "Keep tainted 'science' out of classrooms," (Nov.
29), characterizes opposition to the theory of evolution as religious
pronouncements. There is a reason for it.
Richard Dawkins, famed author of "The Blind Watchmaker," has said that
Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." He
also said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good,
nothing but pointless indifference." Dawkins's statement is not science but
a melange of all sorts of philosophical and theological presuppositions.
People do not attack scientific inquiry that truly searches for the truth.
Unlike physics, paleontology is a science in the sense of forensic science.
The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is
not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has
occurred. That is why the overwhelming majority of Americans still believe
in a Creator.
The underpinning of biological sciences is biochemistry and at that
microscopic level there is no scientific model that can explain the
evolution of complex biological systems and functions. The biochemist
Michele Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," shows that neo-Darwinism cannot account
for the molecular structure of life.
The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with advances in
medicine, science, and technology. Is such a theory, therefore, that
indispensable for our students?
No one is objecting to the teaching of evolution. However, students of faith
ought not to come out of biology classes with the notion that there is no
God. Otherwise, theology and not merely biology is being taught in such classes.