A Creationist Responds

I read with great interest the Opinion pieces in which the "danger" of creationism was discussed by several able scientists (The Scientist, November 17, 1986, pp. 10-11). Unfortunately, none of these authors offered any help in resolving the controversy. Name calling, of which both sides are amply guilty, will do nothing to solve the dilemma facing our public school system. If I may be so bold, allow me to present the concerns that those of us who are biblical literalists have about the teaching

Written byCraig Svensson

| 4 min read

Listen with Speechify

0:00

4:00

First, let me state my views. I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. More important, I believe it to be the only source of inerrant "truth." Thus, I accept all other proposed "truth" (whether scientific or philosophic) only if agrees or does not conflict with the Bible.

The book of Genesis teaches a six-day creation. I believe it speaks literally on this point, as substantiated in Exodus. Thus, I believe the Earth, as we know it, was created in six literal days. The book of Genesis also indicates clearly that the creation of man was distinct from that of animals. Specifically, man (and only man) was created in the image of God. Furthermore, Genesis indicates that animals were to reproduce only "after their kind." Therefore, I reject the claim of genealogical connection because it conflicts with the word of God.

Some may think this to ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!

Join for free today

Already a member? Login Here