Here is our point-by-point response to a letter to the editor that appeared on May 3, 2005 in AiG-USA's hometown newspaper, The Cincinnati Post, headlined:

Creationist agenda

Regarding the guest column "Answers in Genesis rebuts 'false claims'" by Ken Ham and Mark Looy that ran April 18:

One's personal beliefs are, well, one's personal beliefs.

AiG's comment: It begs the question … would this letter-writer, then, not wish to have her apparently deeply held personal beliefs (e.g., in the evolution belief system) imposed on others? The impression the writer leaves, after reading her next few statements, is that she only wants her personal beliefs taught to students in public schools.

The discussion about evolution and creationism is fine as long as it is confined to the salon and the pulpit.

So the creation/evolution debate should not be heard outside these two confines? Banned from even being discussed in the media, for example?

It becomes dangerous for the United States of America when the creationist agenda creeps into Kentucky schools and, indeed, all other American schools.

The implication here is that AiG (the focus of her letter) wants to mandate that creation or intelligent design be taught in public schools. That is not the case at all (and never has been). For our reasons why it might be an unwise move to force instructors to teach creation, go to Ohio Educators to be Applauded.

As if Kentucky schools do not have enough problems, they may be set back further as the teaching of science feels the brunt of this threatened setback.

There is no "threatened setback," for neither AiG nor any other biblical creationist organization of which we are aware is directly involved in legislation, litigation or lobbying to force creation into schools.

Contrary to her assertion, we would submit that as public school educators have increasingly turned their backs on the moral authority of the Bible, the schools themselves have become a haven for major social problems like school violence, teen suicide, the rejection of abstinence education, etc. Furthermore, the teaching (in most American public schools) that evolution is a fact has led to a sense of hopelessness and purposelessness among young people-should we be surprised, then, to see teen suicide and violence at higher rates than during the time when the Bible was used as a teaching text in schools?

Educators in China, India and Japan, among other sophisticated countries,

While India and China have made some strides in improving literacy rates and in other educational pursuits, calling them scientifically "sophisticated" is absurd (especially when they are compared to many Western nations). As one who has traveled through both India and Communist China, and having visited different provinces, I would submit that the word "sophistication" can't legitimately be applied to them (although some portions of India, such as the technologically developed south, and some major Chinese cities like Shanghai, show strides in business and industry-largely because they are using Western-developed technology).

must either be puzzled or amused by American science teaching with its overbearing piety

Not sure what "overbearing piety" means here-perhaps the author is trying to say that Christians are pious and are trying to impose their beliefs on others. But an examination of American educational history in the 20th century shows that science teachers have increasingly embraced evolution during those 100 years, and moved away from a greater openness to creation.

as they go forth to educate their young people for the 21st century with evolution a given, and we drag ours back to the early 19th century, if the creationists are to have their way.

A puzzling comparison here. Many of the great scientific breakthroughs from which we benefit today were made in the 1800s, and many of them were made by creationists (such as Louis Pasteur, who rejected evolution; see Great Creation Scientists: Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)).

One wonders if those same proponents of creationism visit medical doctors whose mainstream training is based on mutations, the bedrock of evolution.

First, mutations do not produce the new genetic information that evolution requires. They act in the wrong direction for evolution (see Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?).

Second, "mainstream training" for medical doctors certainly does not require a belief in evolution (nor do mutations play a major role). Here is one scientist, Dr. David Menton, a Ph.D. anatomist and AiG speaker, who recently commented on whether a study of evolution has helped advance medicine:

If evolution were thrown out of consideration, it would have no negative impact [in medicine]-it plays no necessary role in either the teaching or practice of medicine.

This is not to imply it's not believed by most or that it doesn't come up. It does come up from time to time, but from the lectures I've attended, when it does come up, it's mentioned in passing as almost a confession of faith. It doesn't contribute materially to the topic.

The professors can't spend too much time on evolution, as they have too much real medical knowledge to get across to the students. Spending a lot of time on evolutionary speculations just wastes time. If you remove evolution, there's nothing in the whole realm of empirical science that you can't pursue.

Letter to the editor by Nancy Rowles,
Covington, Kentucky

Our hope is that if the letter-writer reads this web article, that she will search this website further for additional information on the vital creation/evolution issue.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.