Alumnus takes on his prestigious school!

January 31, 2002

Dr Frank D. (name withheld at his request) has had an interesting interchange with his alma mater (a very prestigious school on the East Coast of America) that we believe makes for some fascinating reading. In 1969, Frank received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering/computer science, and has remained in contact with the school (where he also earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees) over the years.

Visit our Creation Scientist section for more Ph.D. scientists that reject evolution

In Six Days
Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
by John F Ashton, Ph.D.

Can any scientist with a Ph.D. believe in the idea of a literal six-day Creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say 'Yes!' Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind.


The university’s alumni office had contacted him about a possible donation to the school, which prompted the response below from Frank (abridged), a long-time AiG supporter. We trust you will be encouraged to know that there are Christians with doctoral degrees from respected schools who believe in the authority of the Bible and are willing to confront the educational establishments which promote the evolutionary worldview.

Dear Dean R. (name withheld),

Thank you again for the two books you sent, and for your letter of January 3, 2002. I [am] not interested in the investment opportunity you have described. I am disappointed with (school’s name withheld) on both a scientific front and the religious front. Frankly, I am both disappointed–and embarrassed for–my colleagues in science [at the school and elsewhere] for religiously promoting the theory of evolution as fact, in spite of the preponderance of available evidence that the theory has been thoroughly refuted, while ignoring–or worse, belittling and muzzling–creation.

My scientific colleagues, both at (name of school) and worldwide, are the victims of myopia and cross-disciplinary circular reasoning. For example, push a biologist hard about the ultimate basis for his believing in old ages for certain animal fossils, and he will tell you that the age of the rocks is the final, defining factor. Then push a geologist past his claims of accurate radiometric dating to explain the basis of his assumptions, and he will tell you that ultimately it is the ‘index fossils’ in the rocks that are the final, defining indicator.

Thus, biology get its dates from geology, and geology gets its dates from biology, so they can have any dates they want!

The religious nature of this belief in evolution has been brought out in debates between evolutionists and creationist scientists. The creationists stick to the facts and data and their possible interpretations and probabilities, while the evolutionists invariably resort to ad hominem comments. I am reminded of a creationist I invited to speak at the University of California when I was an associate professor there in 1980. During the Q & A after the seminar, a biology graduate student was objecting to the creationist’s implicit rejection of evolution. She pointed, as an example, to the fish sequence. The creationist scientist (holding a Ph.D. in biology) pointed out that the fish sequence appears only in biology textbooks and is not found anywhere in nature. To this, the graduate student retorted, ‘Yes, but I believe that sequence will be found in the fossil record in the next 5 years!’

Of course, we are now 22 years later, and it is evident that no such sequence is ever likely to be found, for surely it would have been found by now, given the vastness of our searches. Indeed, we have found nothing but evidence for stable fish, with not a single undisputed intermediate form. But notice the ‘I believe’ part of the graduate student’s statement. What a statement of faith! Too bad it was from indoctrination rather than from facts or revelation from a believable God.

Yes, evolution is a religion, not science, and it is a false religion . . . and its purpose is clearly to tear down and replace the true religion.

Can you see how my donation of funds to the school would be anathema to me, to provide funds that would be used for even more proclamation of the lie of evolution? No thank you. There are some other institutions that I would much rather support.

Just as the great founding fathers of modern science were largely godly men and creationists, and founded science on Biblical principles, desiring to ‘think God’s thoughts after Him,’ and just as the current great Ivy League educational institutions were originally founded on such a basis and became great because of it (although most have now abandoned that basis), just so, I believe that the great institutions of the future are those that are being based on the truth of creation and God the Creator, and that the institutions currently promulgating the lie of evolution will either fail or eventually change over to creation.

Sadly, (school name) appears to be in the latter camp and it has many promoters, but I will not join them.

Instead, I could be involved in promoting a fair dialogue between evolutionists and creationists on both scientific and religious grounds. This could be in a fairly conducted debate with a creationist, and similarly for any other non-Christian viewpoints.

If you have other ideas, I would be happy to hear them. Perhaps I will be able to fund something compatible with my views.

--Frank D. (California), Ph.D. 1969

NOTE: As we composed this (24 January 2002), Dr Frank D. has not yet received a reply from the dean.

Published: 3 February 2006