billp (03/04/83)
I agree with the author's gripe against 'prooftexting' and would like to add my pet peeve to the discussion. Aren't people who don't accept evolution as a valid theory doing the same thing, when they point to the bible to support their view? As I gather from many discussions with anti-evolutionists, the problem is the translation of "day", "morning", and "evening". I am no authority in ancient hebrew or in the bible, but apparently there are at least some experts in the field which allow for a less rigid interpretation of these words. Apparently the hebrew word, which is translated to "day" in the english versions of the bible often means just "a time period of undefined length". The words which are translated to "morning" and "evening", in the same context, mean "a definite beginning" and "a definite ending". If one accepts this translation, the six "days" of creation describe in a rough outline the process of evolution. Some religions, I believe even the catholic church, adopt this view. They do not see any conflict between the theories of creation and evolution, but simply say that god created the world, and evolution explains the detailed process by which the creation was accomplished. Evolution as such does not require either the presence or the absence of a guiding intelligence to be valid. As long as experts leave a reasonable doubt as to the correct translation of an ancient language, I think it tragic that otherwise intelligent people can reject an entire science, all the abundant evidence with it, and close their minds to the wonders of natural laws, simply by choosing one fallible person's opinion over another. Bill Pfeifer ...decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!billp