In Ken Metz’s Nov. 4 commentary, “Evidence is basis for theories,” he presents his lofty idea of what a “theory” is, referring particularly to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I am not a trained or otherwise qualified scientist and therefore would not presume to put forth a scientific theory. But according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition, Copyright 2004, definition 2 of the word “theory” is — “a speculative idea...” and definition 6 is the opposite of what Mr. Metz states — “popularly, a mere conjecture ... .”

As a student of the Word of God I realize that the Bible is not a science book and science rarely touches on the spiritual aspect of life. The Word of God is not contrary to true science. The creation activity of God in Genesis is precisely the “evolution” of earth from its inception through the appearance of man as determined and accepted by scientific study.

Science cannot test for the hand of God. Evidence of His hand comes mostly from His word. And God’s activity in Genesis was recorded long before science was studying the earth’s early days.

An elementary school student could look at fossils and skeletons and conclude that man is more closely related in structure to apes rather than horses or carp. That would be related by structure, not by blood. DNA testing has not advanced far enough to declare otherwise. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a well thought out and well presented idea.

Using Mr. Metz’ allegory of a lawsuit, it would appear that he has returned his verdict. And Ken Specht has returned his. My original point applies here, too. A guilty verdict does not prove the fact of guilt. Only that the preponderance of evidence points that way.

As for my “dreamed-up” theory, here’s the evidence — Genesis 1:27 the creation of mankind, 2:7 the forming of Adam, 4:16 and 19 Cain’s departure from home and taking wives of unstated origin, chap. 5 the lineage from Adam to Noah, 6:4 identity of the 2 strains of man, 7:21 all but Noah’s family died.

This is the evidence I used for supposition in accepting Darwin’s theory of the Descent of Man from another species. But it’s “just” a theory.

Gerald Kirk

Ridgeley, W.Va.

React to this story:


Trending Video