|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2011
Publications like these have helped many see the folly of compromise on Genesis,
and helped ground people in the Bible.
What a relief …
Published: 11 June 2011(GMT+10)
This week’s correspondence features a testimony from June R. from New Zealand,
who recognized the damage long-age thinking does to Christian faith. CMI’s
Dr Carl Wieland and Dr
Jonathan Sarfati also answer questions on the meaning of “devolve”
and the bias of the mainstream media towards evolution.
Dr June R. from New Zealand wrote:
I would like to record my sincere and heartfelt thanks to all of you at CMI. At
the age of 13 I was a convinced (but very ignorant) atheist, having been influenced
by the science lessons received at secondary school in Sydney to believe that the
earth was extremely old (because of the rock layers) and that evolution accounted
for the diverse forms of life on earth (because of the fossils in the rocks); and
following on this, evolution. But then my brother (15) was converted at a Crusader
camp, and he introduced me to three (for me) pivotal books: The Problem of Pain,
by C.S. Lewis; C.T. Studd, Cricketer and Pioneer, by Norman Grubb; and
Who Moved the Stone?, by Frank Morison.
It was obvious that a 6-day creation and a world-wide Flood, as the Bible said,
was a totally adequate explanation for the phenomena that we observe in nature.
Once I was convinced that Jesus really rose from the dead, I became a Christian,
and also accepted the authority and truth of the Bible. If Jesus believed in the
first chapters of Genesis, as He obviously did, then it must be true; He is God,
He must know. But unfortunately I also still thought that what had been taught to
me about rock layers, long ages and fossils was also true.
I uneasily accepted the ‘day-age’ theory and tried to ignore the fact
that it didn’t really fit, and avoided thinking about the subject as much
as possible. Then, when I was 41, I began to teach Bible in Schools to Standard
4 children, and Creation was in my curriculum. It was very difficult, given my own
confusion – I majored on the fact that there were only two alternatives, intelligent
design or chance, and emphasised the extreme unlikelihood of everything having happened
by chance, the impossibility of the first living cell arising by chance, and so
on. But I still taught them the ‘day-age’ theory! I received a shock
when the grandson of one of my fellow Bible teachers told his grandmother, “Mrs
R. believes in evolution”. It showed me how unconvincing and contradictory
my lessons were.
But then, praise God, I read
The Genesis Flood [Ed. note: this classic (though now geologically
out of date) 1961 book, by the late Dr Henry M. Morris and Dr John Whitcomb, was
responsible for many folk in CMI becoming firm believers in Genesis creation.] and
Henry Morris’s commentary on Genesis [The
Genesis Record]. I saw that the story of fossil formation in sedimentary
rocks over long years was nonsense—fossils have to be formed quickly. It was
obvious that a 6-day creation and a world-wide Flood, as the Bible said, was a totally
adequate explanation for the phenomena that we observe in nature.
Since then I have devoured
Creation magazine and book after book from your ministry [now called]
Creation Ministries International … and visit and profit from your website
every day. It is invidious to single people out, but I so appreciate your wonderful
scientists, Dr
Jonathan Sarfati, Michael Oard1, and many others, and Dr
Carl Wieland’s long service and marvellous effectiveness ( accompanied
always by a gracious attitude) as a debater. What a relief it has been to accept
the whole Bible as absolutely true.
Thank you again, all of you. I honour you.
Yours sincerely,
June R.
P.S. A few days after the above was received, in a reply to a request for permission
to publish the above, June added: “I can’t really express how much I
love and support this ministry.”
Y.O. writes:
Hi there.
I have noticed a number of places in your magazines where the word ‘devolve’
is used to indicate changes that are the opposite of evolution. ‘Devolve’
is NOT the opposite of ‘evolve’. The opposite of ‘evolve’
is ‘regress’. ‘Devolve’ means to place a responsibility
on someone-as in, it devolves upon you to use correct English when publishing a
magazine, especially if trying to promote the intellectual credibility of your argument.
Regards,
Y.
Carl Wieland responds:
Dear Ms O.
Thank you for your email. You wrote:
I have noticed a number of places in your magazines where the word ‘devolve’
is used to indicate changes that are the opposite of evolution. ‘Devolve’
is NOT the opposite of ‘evolve’. The opposite of ‘evolve’
is ‘regress’. ‘Devolve’ means to place a responsibility
on someone-as in, it devolves upon you to use correct English when publishing a
magazine, especially if trying to promote the intellectual credibility of your argument.
We’re always grateful when someone lets us know of apparent errors, though
in this case it’s not really an error, as I think I can show you.
Your usage of the word is correct, but many words have multiple meanings, and this
one is no exception. For example, from
dictionary.com, the first source I consulted, comes the following list for
‘devolution’ (I’ve marked the applicable one in blue).
- the act or fact of devolving; passage onward from stage to stage.
- the passing on to a successor of an unexercised right.
- Law . the passing of property from one to another, as by hereditary succession.
- Biology. degeneration.
- the transfer of power or authority from a central government to a local government.
The word ‘devolve’ relates to ‘devolution’, as does ‘evolve’
to ‘evolution’. It comes from the Latin for ‘roll downwards/downhill’.
The Oxford online dictionary has meanings for ‘devolve’ listed
as follows:
Pronunciation:/dɪˈvɒlv/
verb
- 1 [with object] transfer or delegate (power ) to a lower level,
especially from central government to local or regional administration: measures
to devolve power to a Scottish assembly(as
adjective devolved) devolved and decentralized government
- [no object] (devolve on/upon/to) (of duties or responsibility)
pass to (a body or person at a lower level):his duties devolved on a comrade
- [no object] (devolve on/upon/to) Law(of property) be transferred
from one owner to (another), especially by inheritance
- 2 [no object] (devolve into) formal pass into
(a different state, especially a worse one ); degenerate: the Empire devolved into
separate warring states
The third source I consulted was
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (I did not consult any more, because
presumably most will merely serve to reinforce these points):
Main Entry: de·volve
Pronunciation: \di-ˈvälv,-ˈvȯlv, dē-\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·volved; de·volv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin devolvere, from de- +volvere
to roll — more at VOLUBLE
Date: 15th century
We wish more people would notify us about perceived errors, because we certainly
do make them in the course of all the wordage we produce, and want to always be
as accurate as possible.
transitive verb: to pass on (as responsibility, rights,
or powers) from one person or entity to another <devolving to western
Europe full responsibility for its own defense — Christopher Lane>intransitive
verb1a: to pass by transmission or succession <the
estate devolved on a distant cousin> b : to fall or
be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation <the responsibility for breadwinning
has devolved increasingly upon women — Barbara Ehrenreich>
2: to come by or as if by flowing down <his allegedly subversive
campaigns … devolve from his belief in basic American rights—Frank
Deford>
3: to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution <where order devolves
into chaos — Johns Hopkins Magazine>
Thank you once again for caring though, it is appreciated. We wish more people would
notify us about perceived errors, because we certainly do make them in the course
of all the wordage we produce, and want to always be as accurate as possible. I
trust our publications have been of help and interest to you.
Kind regards,
Carl W.
J.P. from the United Kingdom wrote in response to
Müller cells refuting Dawkins: feedback:
What worries me is that the UK’s Channel 4 are doing a series showcasing Dawkins’
ideas—as if they are based on real science!
I would like to contact them to ask when they are going to show the scientific evidence
for creation, to provide proper balance; but doubt it will make any difference.
It makes me so angry that Dawkins is allowed to proselytise with his stupid anti-God
‘religion’ while non-evolutionist science doesn’t get a look in!
Dawkins et al are indeed ‘stupid’ in the Biblical sense, “The
fool says in his heart there is no God”!
Jonathan Sarfati replies:
Dear J.P.
Thank you for this information.
Unfortunately the mainstream media is beholden to atheism, with only lip service
to Christianity. But it might be something to wake up the complacent church, so
that the people might be motivated to become equipped, e.g. with
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? (as explained in
http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php), and for pastors
to invite CMI speakers to their main services so that at least the church will hear
the truth.
Regards
Jonathan Sarfati
Related articles
Further reading
Reference
- Mike has spoken at our venues several times over the years, but has only recently formally joined the CMI-USA speaking team.
Return to text.
| Expand this site. Besides the 7,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach.  | | |
|
