Letter - Assumptions determine conclusions
To the editor:
The opinion article in the 2/15/13 Echo Press made it clear that any "thinking" person would accept evolution as a "scientific" fact.
The word "scientific" usually brings to mind operational science with all of its careful experimentation and observation. However, evolution can't be proven by operational science.
Scientists who want to explain how the universe came into existence must use historical or origins science. (That's science based upon the evidence that's available in the present.)
Evolutionists and creationists both use the same evidence: the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same plants and animals, etc. In other words, everyone works from the same facts.
How people interpret those facts depends upon what they believe about the past. For example, both evolutionists and creationists believe in the science of genetics and natural selection; but they interpret the present-day evidence in totally different ways.
Evolutionists believe that during the course of millions of years, one kind of animal has changed (evolved) into an entirely different kind.
Creationists believe that since God created separate kinds of animals to reproduce after their own kind, one kind won't turn into a completely different kind. This belief has been tested in the present. Different kinds of animals have been bred. Scientific experiments have always shown that the information within the original gene pool of information has been sorted, shuffled, or degraded. No new information has ever been added. A Mongolian dog can be bred down to a poodle; but the reverse is not possible.
Saying everything is the result of time plus chance plus matter is as illogical to creationists as creation is to evolutionists. Yes, creationists "take Adam and Eve literally..." They firmly believe that Jesus Christ, their Creator/Redeemer, not only created everything but also keeps it going.
Melva Jean Ruckheim
Parkers Prairie, MN