Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"There is no science in study of Creationism"

In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.

excerpts from original article = brown
our responses = black


David E. Droll's anti-evolution letter in the Sept. 13 Dispatch shows a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary science that is shared by many Americans. Droll wonders why, if evolution took place, it does not anymore. "Why are the species so sharply defined, and why don't we see new species evolving now?'' he asks. Organisms are considered of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring together in the wild. All species, however, have variations within them, and many are divided into subspecies. These subspecies, given the right conditions, can evolve into separate species of their own. Given the vast amounts of time, by human standards, that large-scale evolution requires, it is not surprising that we do not see new species arising very often. Even so, there have been observed instances of this happening, and evolution itself takes place all the time. For example, many pathogens have evolved to become resistant to certain antibiotics.

Again, we see a classic, albeit misguided argument from evolutionists in which microevolution is allegedly evidence of macroevolution. Where is the evidence that the pathogens were anything more than pathogens when all was said and done? Mr. McManus says there have been observable instances of this happening. Where? The only thing that has ever been observed happening is microevolution. Evolutionists have never observed any evidence of macro evolution occurring. It is simply wishful thinking based on their blind-faith belief that it occurs.

Droll claims, "There are scientists on both sides of the issue.'' However, the pro-creation "scientists'' begin with a conclusion and search for evidence to support it. This is not how science works.

Both evolutionists and creationists have such biases. The difference is that Creationists are honest enough to admit it. Evolutionists start off with the bias that God did not create the universes as He said He did. They can't prove God didn't do it. They make a deliberate choice to believe He didn't. From that point on, they can't allow themselves to even consider a supernatural influence anywhere in the process of creation. The idea that evolutionist scientists don't start off with a biased conclusion is completely dishonest. Yet evolutionists continue to pretend that only they have a pristine, pure scientific mindset when analyzing the observable evidence.

Indeed, creation science is an oxymoron.

Neither evolution or the six day creation week can be "proven" from a scientific perspective. The best either side can ever hope for is to demonstrate which best fits the evidence that still exists today. In order to elevate either one to the level of a scientific theory, one must be able to duplicate the conditions that existed when creation began, then repeat the same processes in scientific experiments. No evolutionist saw the big bang, or has adequately explained why such a big bang resulted in so much order when all explosions we see today always result in disorder. No evolutionist has ever observed life arising on its own from dead chemicals. No evolutionists has ever seen a living creature evolve into a higher species by adding new, more highly organized information to its DNA (macro evolution). No evolutionist has ever observed matter spontaneously generating itself from nothing. None of these things has ever been duplicated in scientific experiments or observed by scientists. Yet evolutionists believe they all occurred. What is their belief in these things based upon? It's a blind faith belief, and as such, the foundation of the theory of evolution is built upon sand, not rock. Evolutionary science is an oxymoron. Christians, on the other hand, have the eye-witness testimony of our living God, who was present when all things were created.

One additional comment about science and what it can prove. We believe that science, when honestly applied, will always lead to the conclusion that God does exist. It can't prove the six day creation week, but it will always lead to proof of God's existence. There is far too much order, and complexity in all that we see for it to all have been an accident. Additionally, God told us that He revealed Himself to us in creation.

It is sad how little the average American knows about science. Boneheaded decisions like that made by the Kansas Board of Education only serve to perpetuate this situation.
Jeff McManus
Columbus


It is sad how so many Americans have been lead away from a personal relationship with their Creator by the lies of evolution. What is even more sad is the fate that awaits many evolutionists when they finally meet, face-to-face, the Creator they spent a lifetime mocking. We do not wish for them to experience this fate. We truly fear for their souls and pray that God will one day open their eyes to the truth. That includes Mr. McManus, the person who wrote this letter to the Dispatch.

Contact us with your comments or questions.


Home