Feedback archiveFeedback 2001

More fact-free ‘scientific’ assertions from an anti-creationist

From T.C.L., Holden Hill, South Australia, who declined permission for his full name to be used. Not really surprising, since it’s yet another letter typical of the fact-free negatives that pour in and displays elementary misunderstandings of both history and science. His letter is printed with point-by-point responses by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, interspersed as per normal email fashion.

Well haven’t we we gone back to the “dark ages”?

I hope not, after all the trouble the church went through to get the world out of the dark ages!

Reading your articles, it’s like a good ol’ fashion witch hunt.

Au contraire, adopting biblical standards of evidence, e.g. two or more witnesses, is precisely what avoids witch hunts!

It’s good to see that some people still hold these idealistic veiws.

Indeed it is.

So who should be burn at the stake first? Ian Plimer seems to be your favorite.

Oh right. What particular comment do you have in mind? Is there anything remotely approaching his viciousness towards creationists, culminating in accusing, on University of Newcastle letterhead, one leading US creationist of pederasty? We have amply documented the unethical behaviour of Plimer and his mates in the Australian Skeptics in this section of Q&A: Countering the critics, which they still refuse to repudiate (including the above accusation from the gutter).

A strongly held statement in the scientific community …

What ‘scientific community’? What about the many Ph.D. scientists who are creationists? Does it include the many founders of modern science who were creationists? See the creationist scientists biography page.

… is that science attempts to explain how, while religion attempts to explain why.

Au contraire, both try to explain why and how. E.g. science answers ‘Why do apples fall?’ answer: because of gravity. Religion answers ‘How did man arise?’ by explaining that they are descendants of Adam, created from dust; and Eve, created from Adam’s rib.

Hence, a true scientist would enter into research without any bias from religion or personal beliefs as this can cloud their observation.

If so, then Richard Lewontin of Harvard is not a real scientist because of his explicit materialistic beliefs—see his admission, and this discussion of the The belief system behind evolution.

Because of this, such laws and theories as the speed of light, evolution and heliocentricism have been tested time and time again by independent scientists and hold up in the scientific community.

Here’s the difference: heliocentrism and the speed of light involve repeatable experiments in the present, while evolution is storytelling about the past—by scientists who are not independent but have a dogmatic materialistic bias, as shown above.

There is a lot of evidence out there if you really want to see it!

Quite so—it’s a shame that you’re blind to the evidence for design, but not surprising according to Romans 1:18–23. As we often point out, both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, but we interpret it in different ways because of our different axioms. We don’t deny a single observation made by an evolutionist.

Holden Hill
South Australia

(Dr) Jonathan Sarfati
Research scientist, author and editorial consultant
CMI–Australia [now USA]

Published: 2 February 2006