Yes, there is a dichotomy between the Bible and science—more like an abyss of 4.6 billion years. This is a reply to the letter from John Klink published in the March 12 issue of the Religious Herald. The author says that evolution is a lie. He also implies that science is a religion called secular humanism.
What evidence does he offer that evolution is some part of a 150-year-old plot? None. His assumption is that if the Bible is inerrant, then any verifiable fact that contradicts it is a lie. The alternative is not that human error has slipped into this one fragment, but that the Bible’s whole message is false, especially the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. I reconcile the six-day creation with Psalm 90:4: “A thousand days in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” Would anyone lose his or her faith in the Bible for just one verifiable error?
Evolution is a science supported by a convergence of evidence from other sciences, such as astronomy, geology, paleontology, geology and genetics. All theories are falsifiable. Geological strata consistently show the same sequence of fossils. Evolution would be overthrown if a fossil horse was found in the same stratum as a trilobite. This has never happened, so do not try to fake it!
It is much easier to perceive evolution in microbilogy. The evidence that convinced me that the theory of evolution and natural selection is well substantiated was the discovery of hospital staph. Doctors had been using antibiotics almost as a cure-all and may had forgotten about natural (or unnatural) selection. Consequently the staphylococcus bacteria that survived treatment multiplied until essentially all the staph germs in the hospital were immune. Now pharmaceutical companies cannot produce new effective antibiotics as fast as the bacteria can build their defenses against them.
On the strength of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, I predict that detergents advertized as killing 99 percent of bacteria or viruses are dangerous. After a few years 99 percent will be some percentage less. Doctors may find infections caused by these resistant microbes hard to treat.
Mr. Klink then attacks science. His definition is “the study of observable data and events.” My sources simplify the definition of science to “a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”
The question is asked, “Can science observe the existence of God?” No, but scientists can. Scientists do not ask questions about God. He cannot be weighed or measured. Scientists can test evolution, measure astronomical distances, estimate the age of the earth (4.6 billion years) and trace the evolution of hemoglobism. The biblical scenario of creation cannot be confirmed by science. It is religion.
Mr. Klink uses an illustration of a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist looking at the Grand Canyon. (I never thought of the possibility that it was carved by the runoff from Noah’s flood.) The evolutionist is alleged to see the layers of rock and believes they are millions of years old—by faith in secular humanism! The evolutionist’s faith really is in the experimentally confirmed science of geology.
Finally, we are given a choice: interpret your observations through faith in the God of the Bible or in secular humanism (whatever that is). Will not God permit his servants to accept evolution and still be Baptist?
Is it possible that anti-evolutionists are trying to remove evolution from public school 9th grade biology courses by calling it religion?
Since we need Baptist missionaries with medical and other scientific and technical training, I urge the reader to support the teaching of evolution in public schools. Whatever you teach your children at home, evolutionary biology is required for admission to good undergraduate colleges.
Deliberate, self-inflicted ignorance is a sin. Teaching fallacies to young people is a worse sin. Evolution is neither philosophy nor an empty vain concept but a strongly-supported theory.
Marylee Sturgiss, Charlottesville