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 NicholsonKennesaw
| 1 
| 
| 
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.
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.
Mr. Nicholson, you might describe yourself as a "simple man." I'd suggest the word "rational."
One can always ask, "Where did God come from" ?