Frontiersman gets evolution argument all wrong

Ron Hamman

I appreciate the editorial staff of the Frontiersman, not only for their candor, but also for their realization that at any one time they will cut against the grain of half their readership. And so it is again.

And since in their recent editorial regarding the "theory" of evolution they made a great deal over the "difference" in definitions of the word "theory" between Evolutionists and Creationists, perhaps they could delve into the definitions of the word "truth" for us.

A Roman governor once posed the question, "What is truth?"

And then after waxing eloquent for a bit, they might even consider giving us a small dose of it in regard to a few honest questions that arise from half their readership.

Say, for instance, they begin with whether or not they ever completed a science course? When I went to school, true science was objective; without bias. When did it ever become subjective? As they plainly portray, "theory can mean a number of things, and in the case of evolution…." In other words, a special exception is being made for evolution.

Next, they can move on and explain the truth about why we correctly call it the "Theory of Evolution" but not the "Law of Evolution." Just as we cannot fully apply the scientific method to creationism, neither can we to evolution. However, we can to other things such as the laws of thermodynamics, aerodynamics and gravity, just to name a few.

Then they can enlighten us regarding the illustrious father of evolution himself, Charles Darwin, and specifically as to what he had against women, Negroes, and Jews. If the TRUTH were ever told about what he believed about them, no public school would ever dare promote his agenda, neither could they afford the lawsuits that would arise. In fact, the only ones remaining evolutionists would be anti-Semitic white male Aryan supremacists.

And these are questions that aren't just going to go away; there are people who want to know the truth. Of course, there are those who believe everything they hear without personal investigation, but these will forever be ignorant. But wait! There are more questions! Like….

What are evolutionary "scientists" afraid of anyway? If their "large" (Now here is a term that needs defining! How large is large?) body of evidence is so great, why is it getting harder for creation scientists to publicly debate them? And what about our editorial staff? Are they afraid? Perhaps if their confidence is so great, they might be willing to put their reputation on the line and sponsor such an event? They could give it front page! Really put the Valley on the map!

Furthermore, would our acclaimed editor like to retire early? Or perhaps be the proud new owner of the Frontiersman? The possibility is here! The offer of $10,000 which was made in 1990 to any one who could give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution is still available. In fact, it has been sitting in the bank so long collecting interest that it is now at $250,000. It is absolutely amazing how much interest $10,000 can make in 15 years! Perhaps our editor is waiting till it reaches $500,000?!?

Now, we all know (or should know) that journalist are not scientists, but they should know how to thoroughly investigate any subject; i.e., investigative journalism. Perhaps they could get back to us as to why, if there really was a "Big Bang", not all the planets of our solar system spin the same way, and what principle of physics says they should.

And then there is the age old question about moon dust, which accumulates at a known rate, and indicates a relatively young universe. Perhaps we never should have landed on the moon!

Now, I realize that this is all very taxing on the evolutionary brain. Too many questions! Don't bother me with the facts! But these are but a small number when compared with the questions that could be asked.

However, let me ask but one more. What do you call it when an evolutionist cannot give any empirical evidence for evolution, neither can he answer the honest scientific questions proffered by creationists, yet still clings to his beliefs?

Is it not . . . religion? And if not, why not?

Pastor Ron Hamman

Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla