'Big bang' best denial of evolution
September 23, 2009 01:00 AM | 347 views | 4 4 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

Re: Ed Buckner letter, "Creationists attacking the core of science," Friday's MDJ

Science can satisfactorily explain much about the workings of the universe. However I am not aware of anyone who can satisfactorily explain how the "big bang" could occur out of nothing. Where did the first atom of matter come from? What supplied the first burst of energy?

I admit I am a simple man without a degree from a university and I at least appreciate Mr. Buckner acknowledging that his letter was "only an assertion." He states that the debate between those who believe in the "theory" of evolution and those who believe in creationism "is not one within the institutions of science at all." There are many scientists who believe in and advocate for creationism. A simple Internet search will lead one to discover more than 100 modern-day scientists who accept the biblical account of creation. Because they are believers in God and in creationism, is that reason to dismiss them as scientists?

Do we also dismiss the science and beliefs of the more than 100 scientists of the past, such as Louis Pasteur, who contributed to our understanding of bacteriology, biochemistry, sterilization and immunization; Sir Francis Bacon who developed the scientific method; Gregor Mendel who was a pioneer in genetics; Joseph Lister, who developed antiseptic surgery; Galileo Galilei, a pioneer in physics and astronomy; or Isaac Newton, who advanced our understanding about gravitation law, the properties of light, and scientific dynamics and who wrote more about the Bible than science and emphatically affirmed a Creator?

While science can explain the magnificent ways and actions of our universe, it can not explain the beginning of the beginning. To believe that this magnificent and intricately designed universe just appeared out nothing is akin to the ancient belief of spontaneous generation which Pasteur debunked.

Many of the great scientists and thinkers of the past and present were amazed by the design and intimate workings of creation. They understood the truth that if there is a design, there must be a Designer. If there is a creation, there must be a Creator.

Doneal Nicholson
Kennesaw
Share This Article |
similar stories

Critics question private Medicare plans advantages | 12 months ago

'rEVOLUTION,' 'Four Seasons' hit the stage | 5 months ago

Americans, make it clear | 13 months ago

Tech-bound Days shows his skills as a passing?QB | 12 months ago

Big names, big cuts to lead to big fall for games | 12 months ago

comments (4)
« Minorityreporter wrote on Thursday, Sep 24 at 12:46 PM »
If creationists would acknowledge that they're simply trying to explain what power or entity might have created matter prior to the big bang, they'd be much further along in seeming to be a rational group of people.

But, this is not the case. They seek to undermine long established scientific facts and discovery with religious beliefs and faith based viewpoints that do nothing to help further mankind.

Creationists believe the bible is a historical record and seek to prove it. Science accepts a basic lack of knowledge and seeks to fill it with explanations that are repeatable, observable, and provable.

They cannot coexist as equals.
« Steve Rhinehart wrote on Wednesday, Sep 23 at 04:50 PM »
In reality, creationism and evolution are two separate and distinct subjects. Creationism deals with how the universe, and all therein, came to be.(i.e. Accident or design) Evolution deals with what happened after the universe came into existence.

One only has to observe nature to observe the effects of "survial of the fittest", which is another term for that which we know as evolution.

If you have occasion, visit a civil war museum, and look at the size of the uniforms. They are all very much smaller than the average human is today.

In less then 200 years (a mere milisecond in the age of the universe) man has evolved in size.

There is no argument, scientific or religious, which indicates that believing in creationism denies evolution. They are two separate issues.
« jst wrote on Wednesday, Sep 23 at 02:32 PM »
As Hamlet says, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Though I have no doubts about the theory of evolution being scientifically observable and provable in many cases - such as in the human body's ability to develop immunities against disease - it is clear to me that science is unable to explain everything. But I never looked at the Creationsm/Evolution conundrum as an either/or scenario. Both seem likely.

Mr. Nicholson, you might describe yourself as a "simple man." I'd suggest the word "rational."
« Kim Huffman wrote on Wednesday, Sep 23 at 11:03 AM »
These questions will never be answered.

One can always ask, "Where did God come from" ?