In the September 6, 1997 edition of the Houston Chronicle newspaper, the regular editorial section "Viewpoints" published several letters in response to some previously published letters regarding the subject of origins. Three letters in particular, two by evolutionists and one by a "theistic" evolutionist, motivated me to respond with a letter of my own. To my knowledge, my letter never was published, but I have posted it below.
September 9, 1998
To the Viewpoints Editor :
Although not a scientist, I am an informed creationist. As such, I wanted to briefly respond to points raised by Mike Edmunds, Cindy Gresham, and Theodore Pierce in their letters which appeared in the Viewpoints section on Sept. 6.
Concerning Mr. Edmund's response to W.B. Robinson, evidence found in the fossil record is only as good as its interpretation. I believe that Mr. Edmund's error is that his interpretation rests upon the central presupposition of the evolutionists, that similarity among life forms equals descent. He cites dimetrodon's "mammalian" stance and three-boned ear structure as proof of an ancestor-descendant relationship between reptiles and mammals.
As a creationist, I would maintain that One Designer used a common design that resulted in similar anatomy/function for similar purpose. Such similarities in no way prove descent unless viewed within the context of the evolutionary model. If, as claimed, similarity equals descent - then from what did the duck-billed platypus evolve?
Cindy Gresham commits her own "scientific no-no" by generalizing "all the studies and demonstrations" that prove evolution, but not citing even one example. I can't help wondering if Ms. Gresham is aware of the growing number of non-creationist scientists, like Jastrow, who seriously question the continuing validity of the theory of evolution?
It is interesting that Ms. Gresham pluralizes "theories," as it is a fact that evolutionists have major disagreements among themselves. It would appear that the "mechanism" is still in dispute. Furthermore, just because a theory is taught in "college level classes" and is deemed "elegant" and "successful" in no way guarantees that it is true. Contrary to her assertion, modern scientific disciplines have raised innumerable difficulties, often prompting forced "revisions" of the theory.
In closing, I would say to Theodore Pierce (who embraces "theistic evolution") that "unrestrained thought" is a tool of the novelist, not a source of scientific "revelations."
William Kilgore
TO READ THE LETTERS TO WHICH I HAVE RESPONDED CLICK HERE. THE LETTERS ARE LOCATED ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.