To give you an idea of how this debate has progressed, I will give two examples of two separate discussions that took place in the pages of two local (Philippine) newspapers.
Is it possible for a Christian to believe in evolution? Are creation and evolution really exclusive? Is evolution a proven scientific theory? These questions were among those posed by a series of letters which appeared in the opinion pages of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and more recently in the Philippine Star, two popular broadsheet newspapers in the Philippines. Starting November 13, 1996, following the printing of an article in the Inquirer about the Pope's announcement that evolution is worthy of consideration, several readers have come out with their own opinions about the merits of evolution vis-à-vis creation. After the printing of a article about scientific achievements in the July 28, 1999 issue of the Star, a reader weighed in with his own opinion about evolution, which precicipated a chain of letters. What follows is a complete transcript of the letters that have comprised these threads of thought. The outline below shows the threads of the letters, while the letters themselves are arranged in chronological order. The letter headings are those used by the Inquirer and Star. Personal annotations are indicated by light blue brackets.
I have been in trouble ever since and this morning, I could not help but put into writing my reaction about the news story. I simply could not believe that the Pope would abandon the Church's stand on creation and now embrace Darwin's theory of evolution.
To my simple mind (I only reached third year college at Mapua Institute of Technology) evolution means a simple primordial cell evolved into an amphibian, then into a fish, into a reptile, into a monkey, a gorilla and finally, after a considerable amount of time, into a man. There is a complete, not jsut considerable, change in substance and form from an amphibian into a man.
I am now 50 years old but the carabao that I saw and rode when I was young is exactly the same in substance and form compared to the carabao of today. The pictures depicted in the history books of the carabao in Rizal's days look exactly the same as the carabao of today. That is also considerable time. Even the pictures of man etched in the caves of Egypt look exactly the same today. And history tells us these are pictures of man thousands of years before the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible tells us that "God created... every living and moving thing with which the water teems according to their kinds and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."
Isn't the Bible's explanation on the origin of every living thing more logical than Darwin's theory on evolution?
Perhaps it is time that we pause for a while and honestly, seriously, frankly ask ourselves: Do we really believe in God?
May God grant us the grace to become firm in our conviction.
Ruben M. Mendoza
Mr. Mendoza raised the issue of creation and evolution. He expressed surprise that the Catholic Church has seemingly turned its back on the Biblical account of creation as narrated by Genesis and embraced Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Let me explain that the Pope's announcement on evolution does not indicate a rejection of creation. What the Pope meant to say is that Catholics are free to believe in evolution, subject to the following conditions:
As I mentioned earlier, the Pope left it up to the individual to accept or reject evolution, so long as belief in creation is maintained. As a Catholic and a paleontologist (someone who studies fossils), I have a personal belief in evolution. I have taught evolution to students (and teachers) over the last few years; however, I do not impose on them an absolute necessity to believe it. I have received dissenting opinios from creationists, and we maintin mutual respect for one another's beliefs. Let me also clarify some misconceptions about evolution. Mr. Mendoza mentioned that the basic form of the carabao has not changed over a couple of decades. This does not contradict evolution. The evolution of life, as interpreted by evolutionists, is a long, drawn-out process that takes an inordinately longer amount of time.
Mr. Mendoza also erred in saying that man evolved from apes. Evolutionists have never, ever said that humans are descended from apes like gorillas. What we do say is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Darwin himself said the same thing, which unfortunately was misinterpreted by the media as otherwise.
Myself
I will not dare tangle with Mr. Ancog on the scientific plane as that is beyond my grasp. I would rather leave that to the more knowledgeable Christians, especially those who are familiar with the works of geneticist Prof. Jerome Lejeune.
I was however, deeply saddened by the seeming inability of Mr. Ancog to recognize the inconsistently of his belief. For instance, he wrote that "Evolutionists have never, ever said that humans are descended from apes like gorillas. What we do say is that humans and apes shared a common ancestor."
If my ancestor is a human being (which I believe he is), then it follows that I am descended from a man. If, however, my ancestor is a ape (which I do not believe), then it follows that I am descended from an ape. I cannot be a descendant of someone who is not my ancestor.
May God through our Lord Jesus Christ grant us the grace to believe that he is able to do all things by merely saying "Let there be..."
Ruben M. Mendoza
Mr. Ancog said the Pope's view on evolution does not indicate a rejection of creation. Provided the Catholics are free to believe in evolution on condition that evolution must be interpreted not as a random unplanned process but as an event that was guided by God.
It is a fact as proven by science that all events and all things are caused by the forces (energies) of nature and nothing more. Guided by the laws of physics, gravity, chemistry, nuclear energy, etc. -- depending upon the mass (bulk) and forces acting on them to perform their function. And not as interpreted by Professor Ancog as claimed by the Pope.
Briefly, the professor also stated that the Pope as a condition to believe on [sic] evolution said: The human race descended from one pair consisting of a man and a woman. Specifically this pronouncement is about the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible as created by God. Again, I hope I am wrong in my belief. But I have a point. The event of creation in the Bible was written only about 6,000 years ago. Yet the fossils of the first human beings, based on carbon dating were found and recorded earlier -- more or less one million years ago. How come? Could the creation of the first man and woman be a mythical story in the history of mankind?
I agree with the Pope and Professor Ancog that evolution and creation have some similarities. But they also have many differences; although both were caused by God. Evolution as explained by evolutionists is the slow process of change or development of the basic particle of life from the lowest to the highest form of being.
On the contrary, creation as known to all creationists is a supernatural act of God to create (as written in the Bible).
Such being the case, will proponents of evolution and creation believe that our God-Creator is a force or energy?
Philip FC Wisco
Lest people get the impression that religion and science are always in conflict, Christians should be aware that there are two sources of truth, both of which have their ultimate origin in God: faith and reason. Both concern themselves with knowledge but at different levels. one deals with matters of the spirit, the other deals with matters of the body. It would be simplistic to compare the two at the same level. Faith and reason should complement one another, and if necessary, correct one another. Therefore, Catholics proponents of evolution need not fall back on a literal account of creation. Genesis is not a mythical story of the creation of Adam and Eve, but a highly stylized account of their origin, one that was suited to the people of the time.
People fall into four categories as regards creation and evolution. There are the extreme creationists who hae nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. There are extreme evolutionnists, who deny a divinve role in evolution. There are the thesistic evolutionists, of which I am one, who believe in a sound, logical view of a divinely guided evolution as the means of creation. Finally, there are the undecided, those who do not yet have a stand.
The purpose of all my letters is to reach out especially to the last group. Please note, thought [sic] that the use of the word "extreme" to describe creationists and evolutionists does not come from me but from the Rev. William Kramer. No negative connotations are implied by me.
Wisco ended his letter with the query as to whether God is a force or energy. This is a tricky line. It reduces God to the level of a demiurge, an impersonal, non-sentient, all-pervading "presence" [pantheism].
Finally, I would like to inform Wisco that while I am flattered by his reference to me as a professor, I am not one. I am a graduate student, working to obtain my master's degree in geology. I hope this correction wil not reduce my perceived credibility (or lack of it) in the eyes of the readers.
Myself
I was somewhat dismayed that, in my first letter, you did not print the last sentence which invited readers to read the reference I have used in this controversial issue. Your readers may have gotten the impression that I am spinning all this out of yarn, which I do not. I hope that you will print the reference so that interested readers (Mr. Mendoza included) may read for themselves the arguments laid down by supporters of thesistic evolution. As Mr. Mendoza has made reference to the works of geneticist Prof. Jerome Lejeune, I in turn make reference to the book of Rev. William Kramer, C.PP.S. Readers who wish to know more about thesistic evolution can read "Evolution and Creation: A Catholic Understanding" (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Huntington, Indiana, 168 pp.)
In considertion of the possibility that yet more letters will pour in and carry this issue further, I suggest that anti-evolutionists write to me personally, or arrange an appropriate forum. It is not my intention to start a barrage of letters firing off point and counterpoint in the Opinion section of the Inquirer, as there are other issues that also deserve attention. If a discussion can be arranged, I hope that it will be a productive one. I also hope no one gets the erroneous impression that I am backing off or retracting my statements by making this suggestion.
Finally, as Mr. Mendoza has invoked God in enlightening us to believe in His almighty will, so too do I invoke God in enlightening me and other theistic evolution propoenents regarding the possibility that, He allowed creation to occur through evolution by saying "Fiat. Let it be done."
Myself
Evolutionists often insist tha the fossils (remains of once-living organisms embedded in sedimentary rock) are the essential evidence for their myth. But what we see is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life together with its systematic gaps between kinds in the fossil record.
The strong bias in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of a number of �missing links� that late proved to be frauds, hoaxes, tampered evidences, grand delusions, well-orchestrated deceptions.
Examples are the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Manda Elizalde�s phony story of the �Tasaday prehistoric people� of Mindanao. Even the prestigious National Geographic Magazine was duped into believing the authenticity of this so-called �Stone Age tribe.�
This worldview is part of a splendid molecule to man theory which is based mainly on metaphysical dogma/magnificent assumptions, but the empirical evidence from science is plain zero.
For the open-minded and to someone who is able to exmaine data objectively and make clear judgements, there is scientific evidence from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, etc., or may get in touch with the Institute for Creation Research (P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 USA or http://www.icr.org) for a fair presentation of the scientific evidences from both creation and evolutionary models.
Few people adhere to the Bible-based creation model. But truth is not determined by a majority vote or popular opinion instead, it is found in the person of the Creator God � Jesus Christ who claimed to be the Life, Way and Truth that will make us free!
Dean C. Ibañez
It is not out of rejection of Genesis that many people do not adhere to a literal six-day account of creation. Rather, it is out of the realization that the Bible was not and is not meant to teach science and does not contain all the knowledge at our disposal. Otherwise, we�d be believing in a flat, four-cornered Earth around which the heavenly bodies revolve, just as peoples of the past believed in. If Ibañez is inviting readers to examine the scientific evidence, then I do likewise. In particular, I recommend these two books: Creation and Evolution: A Catholic Understanding (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Huntington, Indiana, 168 pp.) by Rev. William Kramer on theistic evolution; and The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (Broadway Books, New York, 226 pp.) by Gerald L. Schroeder.
Myself
Science, disproving that man's first ancestors were Adam and Eve and that Adam was the visualization of the Unseen God, started searching for the �missing link of man,� his first ancestor, his first �life.�
It was a gigantic and expensive venture financed by government and non-government sectors, Darwin and his adherents (Lamarck, etc.) being their guiding theorists. They failed and naturally, their expenses gone with the wind for nothing. At present, another venture is in the offing: men of science are proving that the �ancestor of the birds� today was the dinosaur of the Jurassic Age. Another expenses for naught, supporting the theory of the godless science. Science is nothing without God.
If some men of science would accept this simple explanation � that God created many things, some for extinction; some for procreation; that fossils remains of extinct matters have no relevance with procreated matters � no time and money would have been wasted exploring and researching for the �missing link� (ancestors) of every living thing.
The historical age of the universe, or specifically the Earth, is calculated to be so many billion-trillion years and the Biblical six-day creation should never confuse mankind. There are two times � one, the historical time of man and God�s time. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God loves simplicity. Since the simple writer of the Genesis was incapable of counting billion-trillion years, God has to simplify His Creation to six-days, but actually billion-trillion years in the making,
For such long years of creatiib God finally rested on the Sabbath day.
Explaining the two times, Peter said: �This point must not be overlooked, dear friends. In the Lord�s eyes, one day is a thousand years and a thousand years are as a day.� [2 Peter 3:8, The New American Bible].
The biblical basis of man�s creation is supported scientifically and biologically by the chromosomes, genes, and the present-day genetic code (DNA).
Man�s body and soul is maintained and fashioned by the lymphatic system; hence for any cellular reproduction by way of reparative process (pathological regeneration) of the lymphatic system, it is subject to the genetic code.
Any erratic cell in the human body is automatically destroyed by the same system for not being conformable to the genetic code.
The theory of evolution of Darwin and his adherents must necessarily defy the �genetic code� to bring about some structural changes in the human body to justify the theorized �evolution� [from ape to man]. This is unthinkable because at present science admitted that cells denying the genetic code are cancerous or non-cancerous cells, and the very objects of predatory destruction by the same system.
God gives us life. God protects our lives from all possible harms and injuries coming from other men or form his environment. God protects that life by providing every man the natural gift of healing (immunological/lymphatic/phagocytic system).
More importantly, every man has the primary obligation to protect his own body: �The living organism is God�s property.� It belongs to Him by creation and redemption and by a misuse of any part of his body or powers, we rob God of the honor due Him. God is the owner of the whole man, soul and body and spirit are His. God gave His only begotten Son for the body as well as as the soul and our entire life to God, to be consecrated, to His service, that through the exercise of every faculty. He has given, man may glorify Him.
To date, science is still looking for the �missing link� of man and for the �missing link� of birds. Eventually, even with massive spending and equipment, they would not be successful because God�s procreation (i.e., through eggs, cells, and seeds are protected by the immune system or its equivalent to [sic] other animals and plants) is the correct direction and the evolution theory of science is the wrong direction.
The �link of man� to God�s likeness, which is the lymphatic (immune) system, is not missing because every men has it. What is missing in the medical and scientific books is this: the immune system is keeper, implementor and procreator of God�s likeness. This the �connecting link� of man which science fails to discover or appreciate after several years of constant research and expenditures and through Divine Healing and its Misalignment theory, the same is discerned and appreciated so that men of science can cope the cancer problem of our time which is an anti-genetic and immunological problem.
Unfortunately, the direction of the geniuses of science is just the opposite: that cancer is �genetic� [hereditary] and caused by outside factors�smoking, drinking, pollution, food, etc.
Science errs. God is perfect.
God is Truth!
Efren V. Reyes, Sr.
I protest Ramirez�s assertion that �men of science attempted to reduce the Word of God into a fiction.� It seems to imply that we scientists, myself included, are disbelieving atheists bent on destroying/distorting religion.
The scientific community has a plethora of individuals with believers, non-believers and agnostics alike. There is an organization of scientists, the US-based Affiliation of Christian Geologists, that investigates the ways in which Christian faith and geology bear upon one another.
Also, in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII deemed evolution a �serious hypothesis� worthy of more investigation. More recently, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences stated in its 1996 meeting that �new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.�
Ramirez�s vociferous attacks on evolution come about through the failure to appreciate the changes that have occurred in evolutionary thought. The most significant development is the emergence of theistic evolution, which states that God played (and continues to play) an active role in controlling the development of the universe and life.
As such, it is unfair to dismiss all evolutionary theories as atheistic. It is with humility that scientists admit that science in itself is insufficient to explain man�s existence and purpose. At the same time, faith teaches us little about the physical world.
To quote Gerald L. Schroeder in his book The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, �A theologian�s pretense that the data [from fossils] are the fabricated musing of demented godless scientists is counterproductive to all sides [of the creation-evolution debate].�
There shouldn�t be a conflict between the Big Bang theory and Genesis, as they deal with Creation on different levels, the physical and metaphysical. Is there explicit evidence in the Bible that evolution and the Big Bang are completely contradictory to creation?
I don�t see scriptural evidence for the claim that life is incapable of change over time. Is there any definitive contradiction in the two premises that mankind was created in the likeness of God, and that mankind evolved from earlier hominids?
I don�t see anything godless about the belief that birds evolved from advanced predatory dinosaurs. That many organisms are now extinct and are represented today only by fossils does not per se discredit evolution. Extinction merely shows that some organisms were incapable of adapting to changing conditions. And what is the distinction between creatures destined for extinction and procreation, may I ask?
As a paleontologist, I decry Ramirez�s dismissal of paleontological study as a waste of money and effort. Science, the search for truth on a physical level, is a tribute to God; paleontology testifies to the diversity of life and travails that it underwent through time.
The search for missing links is not a futile effort, as Ramirez triumphantly claims. Paleontologists who notice similarities between classes of disparate organisms are motivated to search for intermediate stages that show how one bodily structure gives way to another. Or the presence of vestigial organs in animals leads scientists to wonder if they were fully functional in the distant past. The existence of rudimentary hind limbs in whales, for example, lead scientists to question whether their ancestors formerly lived on land, an idea that was strengthened in the last decade by a series of spectacular whale fossils found in Egypt, Pakistan and India, with well-developed hind limbs.
Finally, I fail to see the relevance of the lymphatic system in discussions over creation and evolution. So what if it functions to defend the body? Yes, it does play a role in eliminating genetically aberrant cells, but is that in itself complete insurance against mutation that may be passed on to a parent�s offspring, a crucial mechanism of evolution? Moreover, I find it questionable that �the soul is maintained and fashioned by the lymphatic system,� when elsewhere Ramirez quotes Genesis in saying that �God created man to their likeness.� Is not the immaterial soul created directly by God?
Myself
Firstly, in the field of law, the Old Testament [2000-1500 B.C.] and the New Testament [70-100 AD] are ancient documents/books and hence have primacy over Darwin�s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life written in 1859. Accordingly, when Darwin advocated that theory 140 years ago, Academic existence was already confirmed bt the birth [procreation] of historical Jesus, the Second Adam. Jesus Christ became the antithesis of Adam: sin and death come to making through Adam, justification and life through Jesus Christ [Rom. 5, 12.17ff].
Secondly, man in God�s likeness is the prevailing �status quo� since Adam to the present time; hence those who theorized man�s linkage to the �apes� have the burden of proof/evidence but unfortunately, there is one incontrovertible proof � no ape has ever become man or vice-versa.
Thirdly, confirmatory findings � i.e. Mendelian theory of heredity, tubal and artificial insemination, DNA experiment and �cloning� process have actually mooted Darwinism.
Fourthly, modern technologies [i.e., radio, computer and other gadgets of value] show that man has God�s capability and creativity as against the �apes� who up to this point of time, have never invented single �brief� to cover their private parts.
Fifthly, while paleontologist Raymond Thaddeus just like other scientists did not find any relevance to thr lymphatic system, this system [natural healing and first healing gift of God] when properly appreciated is the bearer / protector of the �blueprint� of God�s likeness [Gen. 1:16] and correspondingly, any defying replacement cells to such blueprint are highly cancerous.
Any believer of God would not allow the expenditure of good money to prove a non-probable theory with a wrong cause � proving that God does not exist or proving the errancy of the Bible.
Good research msu be supported. But misdirected research is not only the source of false education but should be discouraged to avoid wastage of funds and precious time.
Darwin�s theory should be expunged in all medical and scientific books because the lymphatic system of man finds the theory highly impossible [sic], biologically. The lymphatic system solves man�s quest for his �missing link� and the �armpit test� [Misalignment Theory] would surely end not only Darwinian Theory and the various �culprits �tagged by science to cause cancer � his food, vices [smoking, drinking] and environment [i.e. pollution, of any form etc.] but also the use of other �animals� [for men] as �guinea pigs� in their expensive researched [double the cost].
Cancer is primarily caused by misaligned armpit, due to its obstructive effects on the passage of the system resulting in an immunologica problem � introducing cancerous replacement cells in the body.
The world Health Organization [WHO] and the multifarious cancer foundations/centers scattered throughout the world have been informed via E-mail about this phenomenon: cancer is a replacement cell that is antigenetic being an immunological error. Expectedly, total inaction and silence from them for this discovery is irrefutable and unthinkable, coming from a �source� they wanted to disprove � �There is no God.�
Hopefully, the Paleontologist [sic] Society of the Philippines may be willing to be demonstrated or this Misalignment theory of Divine healing with full medical coverage showing that any replacement cell defying God�s likeness is cancerous; that man makes his own cancerous cells and that the sole culprit is his own personal defect [misaligned armpit/s. [sic]]
The test for misalinged armpit/s [sic] would set the correct course of cancer research and the propriety of furthe expenditure for the search of the �missing link� of man or that of the birds. Offered demonstration is not a debate but sharing the goodness and enlightenment from the Lord, Our Healer and Personal Savior.
Emphatically, as far as the Divine healing and its realigning touch of faith is concerned, the search for the cause/s of cancer,HIV,etc. and the missing link of man is already over�
Contrary research is now useless and misdirected.
Efren V. Reyes, Sr.
The real issue here, however, is the misconception that creation and evolution are always in conflict. This is strengthened by the oft-repeated �creation versus evolution.� But this need not be. The two don�t have to contradict as far as theistic evolution is concerned, because the Big Bang and evolution explain in detail what Genesis narrates in two chapters and 56 verses. One might as well use �[creation] and evolution� or �creation through evolution.� What the Bible teaches in simple, general terms, science explains in analytical, detailed terms.
Should anyone wish to carry this debate further, they may want to do so in another medium or forum, where I can discuss at length and in greater detail theistic evolution. Needless to say, my position on the retention of evolution is pretty obvious.
Finally, let me say that charging entire medical organizations with wholesale conspiracies to promote atheism is a very serious act. This I find totally baseless, as Mr. Ramirez has not established a credible motive. As a practicing Catholic, I am surprised that he has chosen this tack, after I had made it abundantly clear that scientists run the gamut from believers to agnostics to atheists. Please, Mr. Ramirez, do not stonewall the debate by stereotyping all evolutionists and oncologists as atheists.
Myself
I will leave it up to medical doctors to investigate Atty. Ramirez�s theory of Misalignment and Divine Healing, as medicine is not my forte. Maybe then it can be explained how a misaligned armpit opens a Pandora�s Box of disparate diseases.
I disagree with Atty. Ramirez�s semantics. He may not have deliberately intended to impute entire organizations, but his strongly worded and severe statements left little if any doubt as to their interpretation. He used the unequivocal statements �� total inaction and silence� is irrefutable and unthinkable�� and �There is no God.� What other translation can there be for that?
The issue of evolution is not served by complaining about discrimination against Filipino�s, either by co-Filipino�s or the world at large. (Now this is generalization.) If Atty. Ramirez has a bone to pick about how we Filipino�s fondly discriminate against our own, he may do so through a letter discussing sociology. But not evolution.
This is not even a peripheral issue. May I ask all concerned to focus the discussions on evolution and refrain from digressing to unrelated issues. I have noticed that in Atty. Ramirez�s previous letters, he has mentioned issues and topics that are not directly related to evolution. Not an ideal way to conduct a discussion, I must say. Such is his use of scriptural and spiritual evidence against evolution. I get the feeling that the debate is getting sidetracked by all these irrelevant �evidences.� Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious doctrine (although some people treat it as such). So what purpose does it serve to bring religious arguments against evolution? The only religious aspects of evolution are the assertions in Theistic Evolution that: God directed evolution toward the development of man; mankind descended from only one pair of parents; and the soul is created directly by God and is united to the body at the moment of conception. In another aside, how is it possible to compare the �blunder� the Jews� ignoring Jesus� teaching with that of the present discussion? The two are very different in magnitude and purpose. Isn�t this stretching the analogy a bit too far?
Myself
Evolution - One Christian's Perspective. Written by a Christian, it sports an essay he wrote explaining the viability of theistic evolution.
Talk.Origins. The Talk.Origins website has dozens of resources from just about every perspective of creation and evolution, from genetics and astronomy to Scripture and the Bible. I myself haven't read everything it has to offer, but I did start off with the The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs.
Flat-Earth Society. By the way, there are people who believe in a flat Earth. Really. Just go and visit this website and read all their explanations about why the Earth is actually flat. How does this fit in the creation-evolution debate? Well, it speaks about a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, something creationists use, and in it's "zetetic" approach to science, something creationists also use.
Copyright © 1998-2002, Raymond Thaddeus C. Ancog. All rights reserved.
Last updated April 12, 2002.
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page