LoginHome » News » Spanz Magazine » All Issues » June 2003 » Forum
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
I was disappointed to see that all but one of the letters to the forum page in the April/May edition of sPanz were negative and critical of the heading of an article in the previous edition on sPanz.
No wonder the perception of the church as recorded in the A.C.Nielsen survey is that of being "judgemental, narrow minded, bigoted and dictatorial." "We preach love and kindness" but according to respondents we are ----- "unaccepting of other sorts of people".
So come on and let's be positive about a magazine that is attractively produced and is the sort of publication we can, with pride, leave in various public waiting areas to be picked up and read by anyone. Who knows where that might lead. But if we can only criticise in our readers' forum we will just reinforce the public perception.
So congratulations to all of those who contribute to sPanz and are doing so many interesting and creative things, some of which will hopefully inspire the rest of us, and also to those who produce the magazine.
Ann Duncan, Tirau
Dear Editor,
I was delighted that you advertised 'A case for intelligent design', and was not surprised at the prejudice shown by the two correspondents who objected.
David Simmers should be aware that the "crusade against the mainstream scientific understanding" is coming from within the mainstream scientific community itself, as they have found more and more that evolution is a bankrupt philosophy.
John Harper bases his faith on the erroneous presupposition that the Bible contains the Word of God, but also contains some human errors therefore requiring him to look to his Darwinian "science" to understand what He did, and his religious belief to find out what He said. If God
is so impotent that He cannot communicate His Truth to us in spite of the fact that it was recorded and translated by human vessels then He is not God.
John also states that he suspects that Darwinian evolution would be impossible to disprove, but has not apparently checked out the other side of the debate. I thought a scientist would look at all possibilities to determine, which theory fits best, before expressing an 'objective' view? The following quotes from, which I have referred to, would be a good place to start the full article is available at http://www.investigatemagazine.com/ under the June 2002 edition.
Lynn Margulis is a world renowned biologist, currently holding the distinguished position of Professor of Biology at Massachusetts University. Yet at a conference of molecular biologists in the USA she challenged them to find "one single unambiguous example" of the formation of a new species via an accumulation of mutations to an original species, and none so far have been able to.
More than 250,000 fossil species have been identified and catalogued, and yet none of them have supported Darwin's theory that there must be 'thousands' of transitional forms if evolution is indeed true. There are examples of plant, animal, and bacteria fossils dating back 3.8 million years from rock strata around the world but no trans-species evolution. Dr Richard Leaky when asked by students whether science was any closer to proving the origin of humanity reportedly shrugged and drew a large question mark on the blackboard. Neanderthal man has been reclassified as a sub human group of Homo Sapiens because modern geneticists have traced the Neanderthal characteristics to modern humans, meaning they were sexually compatible! Human mitochondrial studies are also showing that all modern humans can trace their ancestry back to one Woman from Africa whom scientists affectionately call 'Eve'!
Chicago University's Department of Ecology and Evolution stated "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the Neo Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." Molecular Biochemist Michael Behe from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania argues in his book 'Darwin's black box' that evolution is unsustainable given what we know about molecular biology. The basic argument is that even one celled organisms can be more complex than a modern car factory. Some tasks performed within a cell involve interlinking molecular components, each of which have unique tasks to perform and without which the entire organism would die. Behe, and other scientist supporting him argue that the odds of random mutations accounting for such feats is the equivalent of a tornado in a scrap yard resulting in a complete Boeing 747!
Dr William Bradley was a consultant to Boeing Aerospace and Shell Oil, amongst others, an expert on polymers and thermodynamics. He recently retired as the head of Texas A and M University's mechanical engineering department, and in 1984 he wrote a book entitled 'The mystery of life's origin'. The strength of the arguments in the book prompted Darwinian Biologist Dean Kenyon to publicly state "that there is a fundamental flaw in all the current theories of the chemical origins of life". Kenyon has since abandoned Darwinianism.
When I went to school in the early eighties I was taught 'the life came from a puddle theory', however NASA research in the 1980's has disproved this theory. I wonder how many years it will take our school curriculum to catch up? Should we be concerned that our school children are kept up to date with these latest developments as part of their education?
Harvard trained Patrick Glynn became an atheist because of Darwin but through the study of Big Bang Cosmology has "accepted the God hypothesis". "Ironically, the picture of the Universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced twentieth century science is closer to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copernicus".
In closing it is not unintelligent to reject evolution when real science does not support it. The Intelligent Design debate is a breath of fresh air that will lead people into relationship with the author of inerrant Scripture Jesus Christ and I think that's what the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand should be about!
Andrew McIntosh, Whitby, Wellington
Dear Editor
We have just returned for a (very enjoyable) visit to Aotearoa New Zealand where I picked up a copy (April 2003) of sPanz at one of the Union/United/Co-operating churches that we visited. In letters on the forum page reference was made to your publication of an article 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Life', a subject which is alive and well in Australia.
I write, not to join this discussion but to suggest that your readers might be interested in an Australian organisation called the 'Institute for Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology' (ISCAST) and in particular our web site http://www.iscast.org.au
ISCAST is a group of evangelical academics, scientists, technologists and theologians who are interested in studying and promoting a discussion of science and faith issues in ways that are consistent with both scientific and biblical understandings. As our by-line, 'Exploring life, science, technology and the love of Jesus Christ . . .' suggests, we have a general interest in science and faith and are not limited to creation issues.
Associate membership to open to anyone interested. Further details can be obtained from the web site or: Dr Helen Joynt, ISCAST(Vic), Administrative Secretary, 8 Mabel Street, CAMBERWELL Victoria 3124, AUSTRALIA. Email: iscastv(at)bigpond.com, Telephone/Facsimile: +61 3 9836 6871
Ross Macmillan