You are here: Evolution vs Creationism -> Timeline - Morejon's April 30th Letter

NOTE: I've taken the liberty of inserting some links and commentary - WJH.

EDITOR:

As an ordained minister for the last 21 years, .1 take exception to Mr. Achilles's (sic) portrayal of me as being "arrogant ... ignorant ... and ... biased..." in matters of religious research. According to Mr. Achilles, Baptist denominations overwhelmingly attribute a literal, anti-evolutionary belief system to the Scriptures. Let's see.

In my brief perusal of the nine largest Baptist’s web sites, there are 36.7 million Baptists in the U.S. (1997 Yearbook of U.S. & Canadian Churches). Only the Baptists Bible Fellowship International (1 million members) makes a belief statement in regard to a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, 'We believe in the Genesis account of creation, and that it is to be accepted literally, and not allegorically or figuratively ..'. that man's 'creation, was not a matter of evolution or evolutionary change of species ... "  [ According to the local phone book, the Trinity Bible Church is in the 'Baptist General Conference', which has a value statement curiously at odds with Rev. Achilles. See value statement #4 - wjh ]

No other denomination said anything about being "committed to the literal truths of Scripture." Most denominations expressed belief statements similar to the Southern Baptist Convention (15.7 million members), "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

Nothing literal. No evolutionary statements. If these ideas were vitally important to the doctrines of an organization, they would be spelled out like the Baptists Bible Fellowship's statement. With less than 3 percent of the congregations I researched failing to state anti-evolutionary doctrine, I'd say that this is an "underwhelming" rather than an "overwhelming" support of Mr. Achilles's comments. I stand with my previous statement.

Mr. Achilles dismisses one-quarter of the world's religious believers (Hindus and Buddhists) flippantly by stating "... (they) are likely to believe most anything regarding this debate."  Would they just as easily believe in scientific" creationism as evolution? Mr. Achilles said previously they had "... no claim to believe the bible." Are you implying that their religious beliefs preempt them from logical inquiry concerning this debate?

In a trite comment, Mr Achilles condemns millions of Christians to religious hypocrisy by stating, "Though many theists do believe in evolution, most TRUE (my emphasis) Christians do not."

Has he heard of Pope John Paul's two separate statements regarding the acceptance of evolution (Pontifical Academy of Science, Oct.3, 1981 and Oct.24, 1996)? Would you please define a 'true Christian" to the meager few here professing to be followers of Christ?

Lastly, you ask my students not to be taken in by "science falsely so called." (I Timothy 6:20) Would you explain to me, my students, and the Gilroy community (who are aware that modern scientific thought came into existence just a couple centuries ago), how the Bible now has science verses in it? How did the word "knowledge" get converted to "science?"

I too, don't wish to be unkind to Mr. Achilles, but his letter was so filled with rhetoric, inconsistencies, and damning phraseology, that not doing so would be acceptance of his beliefs as factual.