A friend recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch. His letter was printed this past Sunday . I thought he made a good point so I asked him if I could post it here. He said yes. So, here is his letter:
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Both evolution and creation are conclusions drawn from assumptions. Letter-writer Andrew Shufferly [“Creationism Assumes the Conclusion”] and many other people believe that evolution is fact, based on the evidence. However, neither evolution nor creation can be proven, because the beginning of our world happened in the past, without eyewitnesses, and cannot be repeated. Evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence, but come to different conclusions because of their assumptions (there is no God, or God created the world in millions of years, or God created the world in six literal days).
Millions of years are not needed to create fossils or the Grand Canyon. A museum in Zeehan, Tasmania, has a fossilized felt hat that can be no more that 100 years old (it was found underwater in a mine). The Grand Canyon could have been created with a lot of water in a short amount of time. The fossil record could be seen in terms of the sorting action of a worldwide flood, such as Noah’s flood. A person’s assumptions determine his or her conclusion.
God is the real issue here. If there is a God, then we would have to come under his authority as the one who created us. If there is no God or if the Bible can be questioned, then humans can come up with their own rules for living. I challenge the reader to look at the evidence with a different assumption. If there is a God, then he is an authority over all he created whether we believe in him or not.
Tim Elder. Richmond.