|
|
|
|
T W I N
C I T I E S
C R E A T I O N
S C I E N C E
A S S O C I A T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: Ross Olson [ross.olson(at}earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011
To: Editor Star Tribune (opinion{at}startribune.com)
Subject: Nurturing Neighbors
Peter Lescak longs for a perfect world where creatures do not kill each other ("Nurturing Your
Neighbors As Yourself." (4/17) Yet he comes from a philosophical assumption that contradicts his
conclusion. If we value all life because "we come from the biosphere," then to interfere with natural
selection (which even if it facilitates the survival of the fittest does not -- even with mutation -- ever
explain the arrival of the fittest) is about the only act that can rationally be called wrong. He gets closer
when he writes of a "spirituality" and calls for "love." But the only worldview that explains the utopian
desire he expresses is the one where humanity is created to have stewardship over a perfect creation
without death, but now spoiled by our disobedience and awaiting renewal by the One Who
personifies love.
Ross Olson
Star Tribune published this letter as noted below: note the omissions in red.
Leschak's utopian views not realistic or helpful
Peter Leschak longs for a perfect world where creatures do not kill each other. Yet he comes from a philosophical assumption that contradicts his conclusion ("Sharing the world with the birds and the bees," April 17).
If we value all life because "we come from the biosphere," then to interfere with natural selection is about the only act that can rationally be called wrong.
He gets closer when he writes of a "spirituality" and calls for "love." The only worldview that explains the utopian desire he expresses is the one in which humanity is created to have stewardship over a perfect creation without death.
ROSS OLSON, MINNEAPOLIS
I wrote this about the editing:
I thank you for publishing my letter but wonder if you even think about the reasons for the editing you did?
It is not for brevity but is clearly to remove the absence of a scientific basis for evolution and the fact that the only logical explanation for our hopes is a Biblical worldview. Don't you think your readers can deal with that?
Ross Olson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|