---

I wrote the following response to the creation/evolution article which was published in the June 1992 issue of Good News, a Tucson-area evangelical Christian newspaper which I previously posted here (an article for which I was interviewed). This letter was published, in full, in the July 1992 issue: I would like to thank Margaret Niel for consulting me for her article on creationism and evolution. I must point out, however, a number of points on which the article may have been misleading. (1) The article portrays Duane Gish's false statement about certain human proteins being more similar to bullfrog proteins than to ape proteins as a minor mistake which was blown out of proportion by Robert Schadewald, who pursued the issue for two years and wrote a nine-page article about it. Gish's statement was more than a minor mistake, it was a blatant falsehood which Gish has never retracted, despite requests (some by his fellow creationists) that he provide his documentation or withdraw the claim. (2) Niel mentions no examples of out-of-context quotation by creationist writers in which the meaning of the quoted statement was reversed by leaving out certain words, despite the fact that this is typical creationist methodology. I had provided her with several examples of such misquotation. (3) The article failed to mention the existence of old- earth creationists-Bible-believing evangelical Christians who are disturbed by the pseudoscience practiced by groups such as the Institute for Creation Research. These creationists include Davis Young, Hugh Ross, Alan Hayward, and Daniel Wonderly, each of whom have written books on the subject. (4) The article gives the mistaken impression that there is still a battle over the existence of evolution going on in the scientific community. There isn't, and hasn't been for about a century. What is still debated is whether or not the mechanisms which Darwin proposed -- Qmutation and natural selection -- are sufficient to account for all evolutionary changes which are evident in the fossil record and in the data of molecular genetics. Those who promote Rcreation science, however, quote from these debates over Darwinism in such a way to mislead their readers and lecture audiences into believing that evolution is on its deathbed and that the nonexistent theory of scientific creation is waiting in the wings to take its place. (5) The article gives a mistaken view of what is and is not science when she claims that "science can deal directly only with what is observed in the present." Geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, and other sciences discover facts about the past, in part by making predictions about what will be discovered in the future. Many sciences, including particle physics, rely on indirect forms of observation. (6) Niel is in error when she states that I offered color changes in moths as an example of observed evolutionary change (though it is an example of natural selection), and fails to note that I offered several examples of observed changes from one species to another, such as the Hawaiian wallaby. I urge those who are interested in the claims of creationism to pay attention to extensive rebuttals of those claims which have been published by scientists: Arthur N. Strahler's Science and Earth History, Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Howard Van Till et al. Science Held Hostage, Laurie Godfrey's Scientists Confront Creationism, and the National Center for Science Education's journal, Creation/Evolution. Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank