I enjoyed reading the "evolution/creation" opinions in the July AAPG EXPLORER.

My first observationis that both letters offer a subtle defamation of the creation proponents. One seems to view such persons as those whose opinions are "Supposedly written by scientists who understand the scientific method," with the obvious (yet subtle) implied slander that such persons are neither scientific nor cognizant of the scientific method. The other asserts, "the Bible's version of creaton (Genesis, chapters 1-2) is so full of errors that it is irrelevant to an intelligent discussion of creation. Any serious geologist - in fact, any educated person - should be aware of them."

It is not a far leap to conclude that the write considers Genesis advocates as lacking in intelligence, education and gravity (the other kind) in the pursuit of their profession. I make no condemnation here - I simply make an observatoin.

I disagree with virtually every point that this writer wrote. His approach seems to examine the Genesis account of creatn through the "eyepiece of evolution." He presupposes that evolution is fact in order to discount the creation side of the argument. My firm conviction remains that there is no possiblility of performing a scientific investigation of origins, apart from being the "Originator."

This creation-evolution debatehas languished far too long in futile discussions relating apples to oranges. We clearly need to come to grips with the role of science and the role of faith, and how they relate. I am convinced that both faith and science have not only been misapplied within their respective realms, but they have also (unknowingly) even been interchanged.

Regarding faity, an evolution-based perspective to the exclusion of any possibility of creation is as much a statement of faith as is a creation-based perspective to the exclusion of any posibility of evolution.

I am suprised by the writer's definition of faith. Here is another subtle slander - that creation proponents are in fact willing to take a knowinly false position on the topic ... Having quoted a portion of th biblical account of creation, I wonder if the writer has read the biblical definition of faith, that it is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11 in the New King James Version). I am willing to bet that many people, scientists included, have limited knowledge of the biblical statements concerning faith. Realizing that Hebrews further relates, "But without faith, itis impossible to please Him [God] ..." one need not be ashamed to take a position of faith. However, it is paramount to distinguish positions of faith from (accurate) scientific positions.

Regarding science, I am impressed by the shear "blind faith" (perhaps that is what the writer was intending) exhibited in the name of science in order to prop up the theory of evolution. Yes, that is an opinion I will not defend here because in so doing, I would only exacerbate the apples and oranges problem. I also wonder about the "people of faith" invoking the verification offered by science to some issue. For instance, in seeking to add validity to some biblical topic or event, youmay often hear "Even scientific investigation confirms that - such and such or thus and thus." Here is a classic confusion of the role of science and faith. Can we really depend on science to determine what we should believe by faith any more than we should depend on faith to supplant scientific investigation? If we are willing to make this exchange, then I submit that wehave made science our scripture (authority), and scripture our science (field of investigation).

Allowing such role confusion leads to some interestin questions. If science is the source of all "truth" ...:

• From where do we derive the concept of right and wrong,or AAPG ethical standards, or good and bad? Would it be "wrong" to malign those who disagree?
• Then what about my wife and others who are "technically challenged?" Is their significance lessened?
• What becomes of devine revelation that many have experienced? Can personal testimony of the spiritual realm be subjected to scientific investigation? Can science even acknowledge a spiritual realm?
• And if scripture is subject to verification by science, how can we scientifically confirm Jesus' statement, "I am the way, thetruth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me?" Where is the need for faith?

On the other hand, if faith (in creation or evolution) rules our scientific investigation ...:

• What lies undiscovered outside the boundaries set by faith?
• Whose faith will take precedence and how will disputes be settled?
• Who pays for the investigations - the government or the church, or both?

The questions seem endless.

I can attest (initially through faith, subsequently through revelation) to the existence of God and the Lordship of Jesus. I can further attest (initially through study and subsequently through prayer) to a limited understanding of, among other things, Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations, the wave equation, the Fourier heat conduction equation, generalized linear inversion galore and beautiful sunsets. But regarding origins, while the apples and oranges continue to fly about, I am going to withdraw, stand on the sidelines, and thank God for all the ways available to preceive His Creation - including through scientific investigation.

Jim Lance, Houston
. . .