More undermining than fact in lecture

I read with interest the comments made relative to the lecture given by evolutionist Eugenie Scott at ECC recently.

I am amused by the projected image of seeking the truth in these sorts or symposiums when it is clear those who hold this view are simply trying to persuade everyone else that their position is the truly scientific one.

They do this, not so much with supposed facts, but by trying to undermine the position of creationists.

Neither evolutionism nor creation can be absolutely proven for the obvious reason -- no one, other than God if you are a creationist, was there to view how things actually began.

For evolutionists to claim to know what happened millions, or even billions of years ago is ridiculous. Dating systems are much too limited and inadequate to accurately reveal this.

In reality, evolutionists and creationists look at "evidence" and then reach their conclusions, many times pre-determined, based on personal belief.

Even though evolutionists would deny this, evolution actually requires just as much "faith" as does creationism. It simply depends on from what position you begin.

I believe evolutionism is primarily an atheistic position. Not all who believe in evolution are atheists, but most of the academic elite in evolutionary circles are either atheists or agnostics.

Thus, they must reject the possibility of creation at the very base of their position, and then build a suitable alternative. That is why they always try to separate science and religion. However, to be truly scientific, all possible explanations of evidence should be considered.

So again, I say, creationism can be strongly defended in any open and fair debate. Unfortunately, evolutionists do not want that.

Michael Poole

South Elgin