LETTER: Creation vs. Evolution debate is usually misunderstood

Dear Editor,

The origin of the evolution vs. creation debate has two aspects. On one hand, the debaters misunderstand science or religious doctrine or both. The other source of contention is the limit of humanity’s knowledge as a whole in both the realms of science and religion.

As more is understood about the genetics of life, from the Human Genome Project and similar non-human research, the conclusions repeatedly suggest all life has a common ancestor. As this evidence continues to mount and Homo sapiens are found to have more in common with other species, some are alarmed. Such information flies in the face of what they cherish as their core beliefs.

Many hold that a supreme being fashioned life and all things necessary to support it. The greatest reference is the Bible’s Genesis. From this, one can learn about the seven days of creation, Adam’s formation from the dust and Eve’s use of his rib. Those most opposed to the idea of evolution hold to these teachings of chapter one literally: that what is written is explicitly what occurred. Such literalism may not be accurate.

Prominent religious leaders have spoken on this point. In 1992 the Brigham Young University Board of Trustees compiled all statements by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the origin of man. While repeatedly reaffirming the divine origin of the spirit, the origin of the body is not named. On Oct. 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the statements of his predecessor Pius XII, when he stated to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis.”

Religious doctrine does not exclude evolution. When those who are religious do so, they limit to their own level of understanding that God in whom they place confidence. In like manner, evolution does not preclude the existence, past or present, of a wise designer.

Essentially, the debate between creation and evolution is entirely speculative on both sides: Creationists lack the information to give biological terms on the events of the sixth day. Evolutionists don’t have the laboratory facilities to exclude an omniscient, omnipresent being while they isolate and study the processes of life.

Travis Hunt