Delano Herald Journal

Serving the communities of Delano, Loretto, Montrose, MN, and the surrounding area

Letters to the Editor



From: Chris Leverington, Superior, Wis.
Sept. 16, 2002

I’m writing in response to an editorial (Dale Kovar’s
column) that I accidentally stumbled upon while searching for the Great
Lakes Aquarium web site.

This article
was titled “Duluth’s Great Lakes Aquarium spoiled by evolution exhibits,”
and was published July 8, 2002.

I found the author’s lack of knowledge on many aspects
of his article to be rather humorous, but I’m not writing to make fun of
the poor guy. The GLA is a great educational source for the children and
adults of the north.

Evolution occurs, whether you believe in creation or not,
it occurs.

It is possible to believe in creation and still believe
in evolution. As far as the author’s arguments go, they backfired on himself.
The earth is millions of years old, billions even.

He says that “Biblical scholars calculate the earth
to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old.”

If this is so, then how do we account for the dinosaurs
that lived on earth 65 million years ago? We know they are this old because
of carbon dating . . . but if you don’t believe in carbon dating . . .
there is no reference to the dinosaurs in the Bible, yet they were here
­ we have the bones to prove it.

Now, we can move on to his facts that disprove evolutionary
theory.

(1) The moon is receding at a rate . . . tides would have
eroded the continents.

The continents haven’t been here all that long. Continents
were formed by tectonic shift and collision and volcanic eruption. The
earth was here long before the continents were.

(2) He says Niagara Falls is eroding at a rate of four
to five feet per year, which makes it less then 10,000 years old, but using
a different scientific argument claims that the Grand Canyon would have
been carved out in just a few weeks.

(3) There is strong scientific evidence that supports
the theory that there was a great flood. Probably occurred after the last
ice age.

But, if you’re going with the Biblical version . . . Noah
saved all the animals, remember. Maybe the glaciers that occurred in the
last ice age opened up new springs and rivers that caused Niagara Falls
to form less than 10,000 years ago.

Any way you look at it, this guy’s thoughts are really
messed up. Maybe we didn’t evolve from monkeys, but then why can’t we find
a human fossil that is remotely close to the age of the oldest monkey fossil
we have?

Even if you believe in creation, evolution occurs. A biology
student friend of mine did an experiment involving evolution in bacteria
this summer and they witnessed evolution occurring. It happens, deal with
it.

From: Daniel Kelleher, Waverly
Sept. 23, 2002

I would like to clarify the conflicting ideas on evolution
published by Dale Kovar (dated July 8, 2002) and responded to by Chris
Leverington (dated Sept. 16, 2002).

Understanding the various meanings of “evolution”
will help us.

Kovar’s comments support the “creation science”
viewpoint that dates the earth based on a literal interpretation of the
Bible. Mr. Leverington’s response is an ambiguous criticism that suggests
we must accept evolution because “it occurs.”

There is an intellectual revolution occurring today on
this subject because there are two very different meanings of “evolution.”

The first type, referred to as micro-evolution, is not
too controversial, and it basically refers to variation within a species.

In other words, we know that there are more than 200 different
varieties of cats, horses can be bred for racing, and bacteria can adapt
and develop immunity to antibiotics.

I suspect the bacteria experiments conducted this summer
by Leverington’s friend resembled that variation; otherwise we would have
learned about it on the national TV news.

What is controversial is the second type, macro-evolution,
which is the theoretical transformation of one species into another.

Charles Darwin applied his original theory of variation
to explain that ancestral animals descended (or evolved) randomly through
gradual variation by natural selection into complex creatures ­ without
any intelligent designer guiding it.

Neo-Darwin evolutionists maintain today that this remains
an unguided process.

In fact, the 1995 official policy statement from the National
Association of Biology Teachers says “the diversity of life on earth
is the outcome of evolution; an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable,
and natural process.”

This secular philosophy influences how our children and
we think of ourselves with emerging consequences.

Contrary to Leverington’s statement that we can believe
in both evolution and creation, we cannot split this right down the middle.

As the mainstream scientific community understands it
today, macro-evolution is based on a philosophy called naturalism.

The rules of naturalism state that nature is a closed
system ­ which cannot be influenced by anything from the outside, including
God.

Naturalism does not explicitly deny the existence of God,
but it does deny that God could influence any natural event, such as evolution.

This secular philosophical doctrine is the reason that
God is excluded from any role in mainstream science, considering a creator
is against their rules . . . the rules of naturalism.

It is philosophy that matters, not the scientific evidence
(i.e. the fossil record and molecular biology).

For example, the fossil record doesn’t explicitly show
any progressive major evolutionary transitions, although this concept is
inferred in textbooks.

Variation within a fossil species is well documented,
but in case after case, and particularly when the fossil record is most
plentiful, it is absent of gradual changes transforming one species to
another.

The fossil record exhibits two general attributes:

(1) stasis, where fossil species are observed to remain
constant and unchanged for millions of years, and

(2) a sudden appearance of new species, where fossil species
first appear fully formed.

As a practicing Catholic and professional geologist, I
tend to believe that these observations support creation events rather
than “descent by gradual modification.”

Creation scientists make specific empirical claims, such
as a young earth and a worldwide flood that mainstream science has said
that are provably false. Leverington took full advantage to point out the
geologic contradictions of Kovar’s claims.

The essential point of creation has nothing to do with
timing or the mechanism that the Creator chose to employ, but with the
element of design and purpose.

What is important is that we understand the world, and
especially human kind, was designed and exists with a purpose.

Regardless of our interpretation of the Bible, we can
draw an important conclusion about it: it is free from error in matters
that relate to our salvation.

What can we do? Parents and teachers need to understand
this issue and can help young people see the hidden philosophical assumptions
of secular science.

If we can educate young people by explaining the differences
between naturalism and the scientific evidence, then they can ask those
courageous questions with courage and confidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.