Pastor’s column disappointing

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Editor,
I was dismayed and disappointed to read Pastor Kurylylk’s column, and his brief dismissal of the Creation versus Evolution debate. Many religious people reject evolution because they feel it denies God and particularly his role in the creation of life. In fact, science is agnostic and evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. It merely posits that life can and has changed over time.

As well, a ‘theory’ is an idea supported by evidence, while a hypothesis is an idea that has no proof of being correct. No one knows definitively how the universe came to be. The religious argument for first cause claims that something cannot simply spring from nothing. This argument disproves the creator it’s attempting to validate.  For example, if God made the universe, who or what made God. This results in endless causation of first causes.

Evolution does not disprove God’s existence, but does show that the bible creation story should not be taken literally. Biological evolution has nothing to say on the origin of the universe. Creationism is the product of faith. In essence, we are not even having the same conversation. One of us is talking about science based on empirical evidence, the other is talking about faith and non-science. By the way, apes carry 99 per cent of the DNA that humans carry. That is scientific fact.

Thousands of years ago, when humans had no understanding of the universe and its origins, they made up stories to explain things as best they could. The Christian version of creation is only one of many throughout the world today. Many pre-date Christianity. There are also many other cultures and religions with their own gods. It seems that Pastor Kurylylk rejects these many other gods out of hand, in favour of his god. This might mean that we are both atheists, except that I believe in one fewer god than he does.

R.W. Allen

Summerside, P.E.I.

Geographic location: Summerside

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Dorian Smallman
    February 25, 2014 - 11:34

    R.W Allen, Thanks for your honesty in replying to pastor Ian. However, I disagree with your position. I don't think the pastor should be criticized based on his brevity because it is a newspaper column and not a theological journal. Also, I believe you are guilty of a brief dismissal of things. You put 6 arguments onto the table in your "Letter to the Editor", which is only reserved for about 300 words. I don't believe it was the purpose of Pastor Ian to write a definitive treatise on the issue but simply point to what the Bible says on the issue. After all, it was posted in the religious section. Best Regards, Dorian Smallman

  • J. McNeill
    February 24, 2014 - 19:03

    Well said. I often find that science writers muddy the waters by calling every scientific idea a "theory". This only serves to confuse the layman. As a province we need to express a need for real, fact based science, as opposed to pseudoscience if we want out children to be able to compete in the field.