Letters to the Editor

My heart has been aching for the millions of people that are following the false teachings of Oprah’s new church. If every person that claims Jesus Christ as Lord would stop watching her shows, her ratings would plummet. As Christians, we can make a difference in this world. It takes stepping up to the plate and going outside of our comfort zone, hence this email. We, as Christians need to be praying that Oprah’s eyes would be opened to the truth and that she, too, experiences grace through Jesus.

I appreciate the outstanding coverage of “Expelled,” but I must clarify one item. One article defines Intelligent Design as “the belief that certain aspects of the world are so complex that they must have been created by an intelligent being.” This imprecise definition—frustratingly used by nearly all of the secular media in spite of numerous attempts to correct it—finds its roots in efforts to mischaracterize Intelligent Design. A much more accurate definition is “The scientific theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” In this important debate it is critical that our position be articulated very carefully.

Two letters in your May 1 issue, “There is no debate” and “Creator is necessary for America’s identity,” perfectly illustrate the futility of the creation/evolution question.

On one hand you have an arrogant, close minded Ph.D., who is firmly convinced of something he cannot prove, making no effort to provide the first scintilla of evidence for his argument. Rather he shows his disdain for anyone who doesn’t believe as he does by attacking their beliefs, again with no evidence. He demeans himself rather than others.

Then we have the argument presented from a different viewpoint, using historical evidence and logic, but attacking no one. This author made a far better argument, without the Ph.D. after his name, not trying to “prove” creation, but illustrating the danger we would be in without it.

I would question only his last sentence. The “suffering and despair” would be caused by the science and technology, with no limiting factor at all.