Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Changing terminology only muddles the issue"
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response.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
See also this link:
Having been a high-school student recently, I understand the problems of teaching evolution and its counterpoint, the Bible. What I do not understand is the reasoning behind changing the language teachers us to teach this subject (Dispatch, Jan. 10).
The proposed changes to the wording would actually give the author of this letter to the editor what she wants. It will make the teaching of evolution more evident than it is today according to the January 10 Dispatch article she's referring to.
Evolution should be explained the same way all other theories (such as the Big Bang) are explained: presenting all the known evidence of its validity and allowing the student to come to this or how own conclusion.
We'd agree with much of this statement, except that it's missing a few things. If schools are going to teach evolution, they should also teach the problems with it. Some examples that you won't find in most textbooks include the mathematical improbabilities of evolution occurring, microevolution does not prove macroevolution, the problems with the missing links, the problems with radioactive dating methods, why Stanley Miller's experiments did not prove life can evolve from dead chemicals, the biases many leading evolutionists have today in the way the interpret the observable evidence, and the intentionally misleading textbook illustrations that appear in so many evolutionary textbooks today. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list. But one is unlikely to find this kind of information in science classes in the public schools because the atheists and humanists who currently have a stranglehold on our public education system, don't want you to see these kind of problems. If the public knew the full extent of the problems with evolution, it would get kicked out of the science classes into into classes on mythology where it belongs. For an example of why evolutionists fear allowing the scientific evidence against evolution to be in the textbooks or the classroom, consider what one prominent evolutionist had this to say concerning debates with creationists:
Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to defend evolution, please decline...you probably will get beaten. (1)
Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California
Evolution is just a theory, but there is scientific evidence to support it. Ignoring that or sugarcoating it is not the right thing to do. It is irresponsible to teach half of anything.
One must distinguish between "evidence" and the "interpretation" of evidence. Both creationists and evolutionists work with the same observable evidence, but use different paradigms to interpret it. We would encourage the author of this letter to the editor and others who believes as she does to read some of the good books like Refuting Evolution, or videos like A Question of Origins Creation or Evolution that give an opposing view to the dogmatic teaching of evolution. We think that most people would conclude that the alleged evidence for evolution does not exist. We believe that most people would abandon their belief in evolution if they were to take a serious look at the scientific and mathematical evidence creation scientists have compiled against it.
Sometimes the only proof we have is a well thought-out theory. No one knows whether the human race evolved or if we were created by a god.
The author appears to be contradicting herself. Prior to this, she said, "Evolution is just a theory, but there is scientific evidence to support it." She concludes her letter by saying, "it is a valid and intelligent theory based on science". Now she states that "no one knows whether the human race evolved..."
Creation scientists can't prove that God created the universe in six literal days any more than evolutionists can prove that matter created itself from nothing, and that life can arise on its own from dead chemicals. However, there are three things creation scientists can demonstrate with science. First, they can provide evidence that the earth and universe are far younger than evolutionists claim they are. Second, they can expose the myriad of problems with the theory of evolution. And finally, they can demonstrate with both mathematics and the natural sciences that there's too much order and complexity in the universe for it to have happened purely by natural causes.
It should be up to the individual to make up his or her own mind. Evolution is not a dirty word; it is a valid and intelligent theory based on science."
Abby K. Barnhart, Columbus
It was obvious from Ms. Barnhart's letter that she is very sincere in what she believes, and that her intentions appear to be good. However, it is equally obvious that she has been another unfortunate victim of her public school education. It is unlikely that she was allowed to see the wealth of scientific evidence against evolution while she was in high school. If she had been, she may never have written this letter. Her letter is a reminder to those of us who know that God's Word in the Bible can be believed on this and any other issue, that we need to get more active in refuting the false religion of evolution. We should keep Abby Barnhart and others like her who've been brainwashed by the dogmatic teaching of evolution in our prayers. We should pray that God will help move them to explore the opposing views. There are abundant resources available to anyone who is willing to consider the information with an open mind. We suggest starting off by reading the book Refuting Evolution. There are also Creationism materials in the Columbus Metropolitan Libraries, and two television programs on Community 21 cable access channel. We produce one show called Creationism. The other is called AlphaNova.
Footnotes: 1. Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, and received her Ph.D. in Anthropology, Missouri University, 1974. Past previous position, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984-86, page 25.
Contact us with your comments or questions.