Rebuttal to Editorial

It’s not unusual that after AiG conducts a conference in a major city, letters to the editor (and even editorials) are written in local papers that are against our message of the Bible being true from its very first verse.

That was the case in West Virginia earlier this month when an editorial in the state’s leading newspaper, The Gazette, took a shot at the message we had presented at a creation seminar in the capital city’s (Charleston) municipal auditorium. Here is a link to the actual editorial: http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201011051105

Here is the reply that The Gazette printed last Sunday by Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG, who was a “pinch-hitter” at the Charleston conference due to the illness of Dr. David Menton.

Nov. 21, 2010

Evolution editorial full of false claims

Editor:

The Sunday Gazette-Mail's Nov. 7 editorial, "Science: Honest evidence," in both its headline and closing statement, strongly implied that creation scientists like those at our organization, Answers in Genesis, are dishonest.

Readers might also falsely conclude that AiG is not supportive of science, including the breakthroughs that come from modern research and technology. As a scientist and creationist, I must write to protest some gross misrepresentations found in the poorly researched editorial.

First, a distinction needs to be made between observational science and historical science, which the editorial writer attempts to equate. Observational science gives us airplanes, MRIs, computers, cars, etc. It is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable and has absolutely nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Evolution falls under the category of historical science, and is not observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

Of course, no one has a time machine to see how things came to be. Therefore, one's "starting points" play a big role when conducting historical science. In other words, do we start with people's ideas about the past or God's Word about the past? In Genesis, God gives us an eyewitness account (His own!) of creation, so we can understand how everything we observe in the present came to be.

Since evidence doesn't speak for itself, our starting points are very important in studying and understanding the past.

We also wish to point out that most of the founding fathers of science were creationists; in fact, many of them were contemporaries of Charles Darwin. For our part, AiG has several full-time staff members with earned doctorates. I hold a PhD in molecular genetics, and my AiG colleagues have doctorate degrees in astrophysics, geology, biology, medicine and the history of geology. While scientists who reject evolution make up a minority of the scientific community, it is a significant number nonetheless (several thousand). Furthermore, since when is truth determined by the majority anyway?

Also, contrary to the editorial's scare tactic, AiG absolutely does not support the banning of the teaching of evolution in schools. But we believe it should be presented warts and all. For example, students should be aware that the so-called horse evolution series (touted by your editorial as proof of evolution) has been thrown out by evolutionists themselves. Also, contrary to your bizarre contention, archaeology has nothing to do with providing evidence that life on Earth began as microbes -- as a molecular geneticist, I should know.

If the editorial writer has never visited our Creation Museum (just a four-hour drive away in northern Kentucky), we encourage a tour and the opportunity to meet our faculty. A complimentary ticket awaits.

– Dr. Georgia Purdom, Answers in Genesis

By the way, here is an AiG web article that might assist you (especially the pointers given at the end of the article) in writing your own letter to the editor when you read something in the paper (e.g., news article, editorial, etc.) that goes against biblical authority.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken