Response to the Columbus Dispatch
Article Titled:
"Creationists should stop saying they are scientific"

In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response.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 = green
our responses = black


If as Brokaw claims, 47 percent of the U.S. population rejects the fundamental principles of Darwinism, that is sad testimony to the failure of basic science education in America.

It is more likely due to the fact that creationists are making gains against evolutionists based on the scientific evidence, and through the work of the Holy Spirit. The evidence to support evolution does not exist, and creation scientists have demonstrated that there are many significant problems with evolution. By default, only special creation by God can explain the complexity, order and design that we see all around us.

The solution is to require public schools to do a better job of teaching biology and other related natural sciences, including the absolutely central concept of evolution.

Here is yet another example of an evolutionist calling our children to worship before the alter of evolution. Those who understand this issue know that many of the tenants evolution is based upon are supported only by the "faith" of evolutionists. They are not supported by hard scientific evidence. For instance, here are just a few of the things evolutionists believe but have not supported using the scientific model:

1. Matter creating itself from nothing.
2. Life arising on its own from dead chemicals.
3. An explosion (like the big bang) creating the kind of complex order we see in the universe.
4. Macroevolution.

Atheistic evolution, the kind being taught in public schools today, assumes up-front that God had nothing to do with creation. Evolutionists can't prove this, they just "believe" it. They believe that all that we see is the result of purely natural causes. This kind of blind faith belief is why we should rightly consider evolution to be a false religion. As such, it has no place whatsoever being taught as science.

If we allow science educators to be intimidated by a vocal creationist minority into silence about the role of evolution in the history of life on Earth (or into giving equal time to the oxymoronic creation science), then we are simply sowing the seeds of scientific ignorance in our children.

The majority of the leading evolutionists are atheists, agnostics and/or humanists. If we allow them to continue proselytizing the false religion of evolution in our public schools, not only will our children be scientifically ignorant, but many of them will also turn to the false religions of atheism and humanism as a result of this unchecked brainwashing in the schools. Parents and children need to see through evolutionists propaganda. This is not a battle between science (evolution) and religion (Christianity) as evolutionists claim it is. It is the science of one religion (evolution) versus the science of another religion (Christianity). As far as his claim that creationists are a minority, see 50 surveys on creationism.

Creationists have tried to drag science down to creation's level by claiming, as Brokaw does, that "evolutionists" are simply acting on faith in the same way that creationists do.

This is a very telling statement that parents need to pay close attention to. What this statement is essentially saying is that science is superior to the Word of God in the Bible. The belief in Creationism originates from a belief in the Bible's account of it. The belief in atheistic evolution originates in the belief that the word of man (evolutionist scientists) is greater than the Word of Almighty God. This highlights a major problem. Remember that the majority of the leading evolutionists are atheists, agnostics and/or humanists. They DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, and certainly would not even consider placing the Bible at the same level of importance, relevance and authority as their science. The reality is that compared to God, they are exceedingly insignificant and puny. I don't mean this as an insult to evolutionists, because I'd say the very same thing of virtually every Christian and creation scientist as well (myself included). The difference here is that creation scientists are smart enough to realize that they couldn't begin to hold a candle to the infinite wisdom and knowledge of their Creator God. You would never see a creation scientists make such an arrogant statement as this because they know better. Many evolutionists, on the other hand, do believe that their science carries greater weight and should be believed over the Word of God. Parents, pay special attention to people who speak like this because they're trying to influence your children.

This is totally untrue.

The idea that evolutionists are practicing blind faith in evolution is easy to support. To see science at it's absolute worst, ask an evolutionist to explain the answers to these thorny questions. Not that he'll speak from a position of authority, and won't be able to supply you with any evidence supported by the scientific model.

Creationism, by contrast, begins with an unshakable conclusion and then sifts through the evidence, real or imagined, in an attempt to prop up the belief system. That is not science and never will be.

Creationists are indeed biased by their beliefs in the Biblical account of creation. But to suggest that evolutionists have no such biases is completely dishonest or ignorant. Those who believe in atheistic evolution start off with the "belief" that God had nothing to do with creation. They assume that the Bible's account of creation is wrong. They can't prove it, they just choose to believe this. Perhaps Mr. Patterson, the author of this letter, would like to try to explain away this quote from leading evolutionists, Stephen Jay Gould:

"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology." - Stephen Jay Gould (1)

If Brokaw finds evolutionary concepts hard to swallow, perhaps he could set aside the creationist literature for a while and read one of Richard Dawkins' excellent books on the subject, such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker or River Out of Eden.
James R. Patterson, Columbus

And if one chooses to read the nonsense in these three books, may I suggest that you also read the opposing views. It is also interesting to note that Richard Dawkins is an atheist and does not hide the fact that he promotes atheism in his books.

Evolutionist book Opposing view
The Selfish Gene ANTI-REDUCTIONISM
Self-reproduction, a pre-requisite
The Blind Watchmaker Another answer
Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker
A Response to Richard Dawkins’ - The Blind Watchmaker
River Out of Eden River out of Eden - by Dawkins - Refuted (Book review Part 1)
THE DNA 'RIVER' (Book review part 2)
COMMON DNA ANCESTOR? (Book review part 3)
THE 'PROBLEM' OF DESIGN (Book review part 4)
WHY PURPOSE? (Book review part 5)
UNEXPLAINED THRESHOLDS (Book review part 6)
CONCLUSION (Book review part 7)

Here are a few quotes from Richard Dawkins that parents might be interested in knowing about:

"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principle vice of any religion.” (2)

“Now, as I say, when it is put to me that science or some particular part of science, like evolutionary theory, is just a religion like any other, I usually deny it with indignation. But I’ve begun to wonder whether perhaps that’s the wrong tactic. Perhaps the right tactic is to accept the charge gratefully and demand equal time for science in religious education classes." (3)

Footnotes:

1.
Gould, Stephen Jay, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, vol. 103 (February 1994), page 14
2.
Dawkins, Richard, "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist, vol. 57 (January/February 1997), page 26
3.
Dawkins, Richard, "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist, vol. 57 (January/February 1997), page 27

Contact us with your comments or questions.


Home