Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
AiG–USA is naturally grateful for every opportunity to proclaim the vital creation/gospel message through the world’s media—even if it means the result is a somewhat mocking article in one of America’s largest newspapers (and on the front page and “above the fold”). The Word is still getting out.
The Los Angeles Times recently ran a lengthy piece on AiG in its venerable “Column One” feature on page 1 (February 11), which was picked up by other newspapers within the Times’ syndication network. Unfortunately, the article attempted to portray AiG as primarily religious in focus, and even anti-science. For example, our Ph.D. science speakers were labeled “evangelists.”
In addition, AiG’s view of how evolution connects to many of the social ills of the day was grossly misrepresented (which is rebutted below in a letter to the Times’ editor submitted by an AiG friend in California). And the best evidence presented by the Times for evolution (as having happened in the fossil record) was, in a word, pathetic (e.g., whales with appendages, reptile-like birds and the ape-woman “Lucy”)—it was as if the LA Times reporter, who flew out to attend an AiG conference in Wayne, New Jersey, in January, intentionally ignored AiG’s easy refutation of these alleged transitional forms.
AiG is often asked by supporters to write letters to the editor for them in order to rebut news articles (or guest columns penned by evolutionists) that have appeared in their local newspapers. As the “culture wars” (i.e., secularism vs. Christianity) continue to heat up, the creation/evolution issue is often at the center.
We have discovered that it is usually much better for readers of their paper to respond themselves rather than AiG doing so (even if they don’t have science credentials), for the paper is much more likely to print a letter from a local reader than one submitted by an out-of-town organization.
Many letter-writers have told us how they have used this website to help them write a rebuttal letter (or even a guest column). Using this site’s powerful search engine, you have access to over 6,000 free articles refuting arguments repeatedly used by evolutionists as they present their evidence for evolution (e.g., bacterial resistance to antibiotics, whale evolution, Archaeopteryx as a transitional form between birds and reptiles, “Lucy” as a “missing link,” etc.).
Here are some additional helpful hints that will give your letter or column a higher probability of being accepted:
Writing letters like these will help proclaim the vital truth that Christ is our Creator, Savior and Lord (Col. 1:15–18). As you and many other AiG supporters stand up for biblical truths in your communities, your voices can make a difference.
Moreover, the small amount of creation-supporting science that was presented in the article was wildly misrepresented. For example, the reporter claimed that creationists believe that: “He [the Creator] created a dog ‘kind’—a master blueprint—and let evolution take over from there.” We have never said such a thing, and we can only surmise that the reporter completely mistook the creationists’ view of natural selection.
Here are two letters to the editor of the LA Times that were submitted 1–2 days after the lengthy article appeared, but which (to our knowledge) were never printed. They might be instructive to you on how you can write a brief—yet effective—letter to your local paper when it deals with the growing creation/evolution wars. (And see the sidebar for more assistance on composing such a letter.)
I was surprised that the Times (Feb. 11) chose to portray the creationist group, Answers in Genesis, as merely a religious organization, and one that was supposedly opposed to science. I have followed AiG’s scientific writings and its peer-reviewed science journal for years, and I assure you that this assessment was an unfair caricature. On its staff, AiG has a number of full-time and adjunct scientists who hold doctorate degrees in science from prestigious universities such as Brown University. Curiously, the Times decided to reduce them all to mere “evangelists”.
All passionate scientists are evangelists to a degree. Just ask one what he is working on and what is his worldview, and get ready to listen. Scientists who believe in a recent creation are additionally in the position of bucking the establishment’s currently accepted paradigm, which they believe is flawed, so they are especially enthusiastic.
Furthermore, the reporter apparently did not ask AiG’s scientists/staff for their views on what was claimed to be evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. On its website, Answers in Genesis has readily refuted what the Times presented as evidence of evolution (e.g., whales with appendages, Archaeopteryx as a reptile-bird, etc.), but these refutations did not get printed. Would it not have been fair to have at least included the fact that even evolutionists are divided over the interpretation of such evidence?
As someone with a doctorate from MIT who has studied the creation/evolution issue for decades, I submit that the best facts of science—when properly interpreted—reject the evolution worldview. That worldview is itself inherently religious and it has its own evangelists.
– Dr. Frank DeRemer, Santa Cruz, CA
In covering the creationist organization Answers in Genesis, the Times’ reporter misunderstood creationist teachings in many areas. For example, AiG does not teach that “the theory of evolution [is] at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage ...”
First, AiG does not say “all” social ills. Furthermore, it constantly points out that evils like racism have existed well before evolution was popularized in the 1800s. As AiG president Ken Ham wrote in his blog over the weekend: “AiG goes to great lengths to explain that the teaching of evolution has caused many to doubt or disbelieve the Bible. The more people do not believe the Bible ... the more morality will be relative and so people can justify all sorts of moral ills.”
In other words, if you want to be a racist, evolution can justify (but not cause) your racist beliefs. That is an important distinction, which the reporter missed entirely.
– Jim Hasak, Paradise, Calif.