Taking Mr. Gieschen's article at face value, it's clear that his belief in young earth creationism proceeds from his conviction that the creation accounts in Genesis must be interpreted literally. That position is confirmed by his insistence that nearly two centuries of research by millions of scientists in the many disciplines connected with both evolution and geological dating must be viewed with suspicion because "most evolutionists are atheists" (which isn't true) and are therefore blinded by materialism, rendering them unable to interpret data properly.

I've yet to hear of anyone being bothered by the fact that that a scientific examination of blessed Eucharist elements would reveal anything beyond bread and wine. In the same way, it seems intellectually bankrupt to insist that scientific conclusions concerning the material world must be viewed with suspicion, or even rejected, solely because they don't confirm a theological interpretation.

I'm aware that both President Harrison and the Synod take a similar position to that of Mr. Gieschen regarding a six-day creation. I find it concerning that Pastor Harrison's articles touching on the subjects, like those of former president Barry, demonstrate little to no understanding of the science involved with both evolution and earth history. This isn't necessarily surprising given their areas of study, but I wish they'd stop treating an M.Div., or here a master's in science education, as though it bestows more scientific understanding than any Earth Science, Paleontology or Biology PhD.

As arrogant as it may appear, for three different reasons the "YEC" position strikes me as stemming less from devotion to God than from insular hubris. First, the principle that while the original biblical documents were inspired, interpretations of them are not. Second, the general lack of knowledge, or even interest, in the science involved and third, the Synod's acceptance of science disproving biblical statements regarding a geocentric universe, the sky being a hard dome separating the waters above from the waters below and stars being able to fall down upon the Earth, among others.

I have to wonder just how much science is required before the Synod can acknowledge even the possibility that a theological position might bear re-examination in light of new evidence? A question that seems particularly relevant given the concerns about young people having their faith shaken when confronted by evidence for both evolution and an ancient earth in college level science courses.

I wish more Synodical leaders would set up a visit to the science department of a Synod College, perhaps bringing a few statements from "Answers in Genesis", and have some honest conversations with the Earth Science and Biology Professors on these subjects, even given the possible risk of having to rethink some beliefs. Of course, the Synod has spanked ministers hard for less than that, so maybe it's just wishful thinking.

If anyone has thoughts regarding these comments, feel free to respond.

David Meyr