Courts don't hold evolution truth

Professor Yarnik's "forceful refutation" of creation-science (Daily Herald, Sept. 14) seems to suggest that judges and the supreme courts are best equipped to establish absolute truth.

True, supreme courts have thrown the teaching of creation out of the classrooms, but supreme courts in the past have also endorsed slavery and "separate but equal" schools.

I can understand why an educator in a government school would be willing to "drink the Kool-Aid" of evolution theory, because creation theory and intelligent design explanations of origins are very unpopular among "educators" and sometimes perilous to career paths.

Scientists who can't offer one scintilla of proof of the origins of life through evolution, how double-helix chromosomes developed, how rods and cones in the human eye came from pond scum, understandably call it "evolution theory."

There must be a reason for so much emotional energy being spent on attacking creation-science. Kool-Aid does that to some people. It seems that in order to accept divine creation as the source of life one must also accept the creator and his revelation. Perhaps it is the desire to bring about a world without the existence of a righteous God that is at the heart of the insistence on "evolution theory."

Not I, but the one I accept as creator of all life, said "the fool has said in his heart 'there is no God.'"

Wightman Weese

Wheaton