Reaching the budget
I have had the privilege of pastoring seven fine BGAV churches and I deeply appreciate the fine mission work our BGAV has carried out and continues to carry out.
I feel a burden over the fact our mission work is now being curtailed because the financial giving by our churches is falling short of reaching our annual budget. I would like to suggest three steps that hopefully will help us in this dilemma.
1. If each of our 1,400 BGAV churches will give $500 or more to our Cooperative Missions during 2006 than they gave in 2005, this will raise $700,000 and thus cause us to reach our budget goal for 2006 of $1,400,000.
2. Moving our annual meeting away from civic centers and to local BGAV churches will save us considerable money and will serve us well.
3. Instead of paying big honorariums and travel expenses to big name speakers from distant places we could use more of the gifted pastors and laypersons of our state to speak and lead conferences at our BGAV and other functions. They will serve us well and save us a lot of money.
I sincerely thank you and all of our fine workers in our Virginia Baptist Mission Board office for the fine work you are doing and I pray that will continue to move forward in serving our Lord.
Jimmy Dunn, Dillwyn
Bible vs. science
Having read the article “Religion & Evolution: a false dichotomy” by Brent Walker [Jan. 19], I feel compelled to address some of the comments made concerning the assumption that a person of faith can embrace both what the Bible teaches about creation and what science claims to be the origins of life.
This was more than just implied when the article referred to Jimmy Carter's statement that “both [science and the Bible] seek truth but in different ways.” The trouble with such a statement is that it is not true. The Bible is the truth, while science is (or may be) seeking the truth.
The article also presumes that because the theory of evolution enjoys overwhelming support in the scientific community, it is somehow metamorphically changed from a theory to a fact. It does not mention the fact that more and more scientists are distancing themselves from Darwin's theory of evolution because it cannot be proven scientifically. But aside from that, just because an overwhelming number of people agree on something doesn't make it true.
Science, defined by Webster is:
“1. The state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding; 2. A knowledge or a system of knowledge covering truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method; 3. A system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws.”
The only way the first definition can hold true is if the second or third can be shown to be true; i.e.; the state of knowing has to be backed up by truths or the operation of general laws obtained and tested through scientific methods. No such testing has ever proven evolution to be true, at least not macro-evolution.
There are no tests that can prove evolution to be true. Scientists have to rely on archaeological records to form their theories. The evolutionary process, as defined by science, took millions (or billions) of years to take place. It is not something that can be duplicated in a short period of time.
What scientists do rely on to support the theory of evolution are recorded changes within a species; i.e., hair color changes, beaks growing or shrinking, height changing, etc. This is called micro-evolution. Contrary to this, macro-evolution entails one species changing into another; i.e., a fish becoming a bird; an ape becoming a man. This is the true theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence of this type of change ever happening; and if there was, I would have to strongly suspect the interpretation of the data as it would fly in the face of biblical teaching.
To say that some people of faith have tried to use “intelligent design” to drive a wedge between religion and science is completely ignoring the fact that science is the entity that has done so.
Darwin was sure that given enough time, archaeology would prove him right-that eventually fossil remains of transitional life forms would be discovered that would prove his theory. Guess what? In more than 100 years of archaeological discoveries (some very impressive, I might add) not a single transitional life form has ever been found. From the onset, Darwin declared that if transitional creatures were not found, his theory would fall apart.
If everything evolved from other life forms, why then do we not have transitional life-forms still in existence today? Or at least their fossil remains?
It saddens me to hear so many people of faith willing to compromise the truth of the Bible. There is no false dichotomy between the Bible and science. It truly exists; and science itself created the split by throwing in its towel with the belief that stands apart from that which is taught in the Holy Word of God.
John Talmadge, Nathalie