Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Column on Science and Religion

January 30, 1988

I have just received a copy of the article bW. McGarry on the San Fernando Valley's Bible-Science Assn. (Around the Valley, Dec. 30).

The article troubles me, for two reasons.

First, it gives the impression that all Bible believers reject established scientific facts, as the Bible-Science Assn. apparently does. I know of many individuals and organizations, myself and mine included, which fully accept the established facts of secular science while holding to the inerrancy of the Bible. We see no irresolvable conflict between the two records. Whatever problems may exist are matters of interpretation--on one or both sides.

The Bible-Science Assn. errs in presuming that a literal reading of the Bible requires acceptance of 24-hour creation days and a planet-wide flood. While there are some outspoken people and groups who hold to that view, a number of reputable evangelical scholars in biblical languages teach otherwise. Many people seem to forget that the Hebrew manuscripts, not the King James version, are the basis for conclusions on these matters.

Second, McGarry says, "Virtually all scientists agree that man evolved from apelike ancestors, whose pedigree reached back through hundreds of millions of years to single cells squiggling in the primordial slime." His assumption is incorrect and certainly out of date. Discoveries made during this decade have caused a number of respected researchers, including non-theists such as Robert Shapiro, Hubert Yockey and Sir Fred Hoyle, to publish their conclusion that no natural mechanism can explain the observed development of life.

DR. HUGH ROSS

Pasadena

Ross is president and research director of Reasons to Believe.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|