Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Fossil fraudulent, but new species isn't"
In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response.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
On February 1, USA Today had a front page story about this fraudulent fossil that was hailed as an alleged missing link between dinosaurs and birds. After reading the USA Today report, we discussed among ourselves how the Dispatch was probably going to handle this news.
We assumed that given their obvious evolutionary bias, and there unwillingness to allow any young earth creation scientists to do guest articles in their paper as they have many evolutionists, that one of two things would happen. First, they'd completely ignore this important story as they did this compelling opposing view about these same fossils published in an open letter from the Smithsonian on November 1, 1999. The other reaction we expected would be that they'd do an article on it, but would make it so tiny that it would be easy to miss it. Not only did the Dispatch take this second approach, but they surprised even us by also putting a 'spin' on the story in an obvious attempt to minimize just how seriously harmful this news was to the dinosaur to bird theory, and to the credibility of evolutionists. It was more of the same old Dispatch evolutionist propaganda.
They're going to protect their friends in the evolutionist camp even at the expense of denying their readers the opportunity to know the full extent of the truth. This most recent fraud is one more example in a long list of frauds, deceptions and blunders from the evolutionists camp. But you would never gather that from this Dispatch article because of the way the fraud and blundering was downplayed. We wonder if the spin doctors who are always covering for Bill Clinton's escapades aren't envious of the work being done by the Dispatch on behalf of evolutionists.
We also observed that as usual, no creation scientists were quoted with opposing views.
To see how truly bad the Dispatchs' spin was in this article, compare their itty bitty article to these two stories done in USA Today about the same fossil:
February 1, 2000 front page story in USA Today: The 'missing link' fossil that wasn't.
January 25, 1999 story in USA Today: Dinosaur-bird link smashed in fossil flap
Also compare it to this article on the Answers in Genesis Ministries Group web site: Archaeoraptor: Phony 'feathered' fossil
Czerkas and others said that glued or not, the creature's winged front half, with its sharp carnivore teeth, would stand as a unique species bridging the tap between dinosaurs and birds.
It may be a new species of bird, but it's certainly no missing link between dinosaurs and birds. See our section Refuting the dinosaur-to-bird hypothesis for more information about this. Also, we are airing a program called "Creationism: The Fossil Record" during the first two weeks of March, 2000. See our Creationism: TV shows link for the exact dates/times it will air. If the exact date/times are specified, check back in a week or two and they should be then. While this program doesn't deal with this specific fossil, it will explain why a bird fossil with teeth isn't a missing link.
Contact us with your comments or questions.
If you have concerns about the highly biased, pro-evolutionary reporting by the Dispatch in the Insight-Discovery section of the paper (where this article was published), we suggest that you contact the following people at the Columbus Dispatch:
Letters to the Editor: firstname.lastname@example.org
Insight Editor, Mark A. Fisher: email@example.com
Science Reporter, David Lore: firstname.lastname@example.org
President, Associate Publisher: Mike Curtin, email@example.com
Editor: Ben Marrison, firstname.lastname@example.org