Nov. 21, 2010: Evolution; safe driving
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.
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
Petersburg, Ky.
Officials earn praise for vehicle safety
Editor:
Kudos to Kanawha County commissioners - President Kent Carper, Dave Hardy and Hoppy Shores - for the wise and prudent decision to approve a policy banning county employees from talking or texting on cell phones while operating county vehicles.
Using cell phones, especially texting, while driving is very dangerous. Public safety is a very important component in any city, county or state. Hopefully, in the near future, the city of Charleston will follow the county's lead and approve a policy banning city employees from talking or texting on cell phones while operating city vehicles.
The commissioners used good common sense and displayed commitment and courage in the adoption and passage of this policy.
The Kanawha County Commission and the city of Charleston administration have many goals and objectives, and I know public safety is very high on their list. Strict enforcement of this policy, hopefully, will significantly reduce the number of motor vehicle accidents in the city and county. We all must work together to make Charleston, Kanawha County and the State of West Virginia a safe and wonderful place to live.
John H. Miller Jr.
City councilman
Charleston
