Posted by: Rob Lester | February 14, 2014

Responding to a response to my response

Last week I read an article in the local college paper about proposed legislation regarding the teaching of flaws in the theory of evolution. It prompted me to write a response to address the flood of errors and assumptions found within the article.

The original editorial:

My response to the editorial:

Dear Mr. Dresslar,

In your editorial from the January 30th issue of the Northwest Missourian regarding House Bill 1587, you wrote, “[A]lmost all scientists now agree that evolution is the only explanation…” and “Evolution is not a controversy in the scientific community.” There is actually quite a bit of debate within the scientific community. The Dissent From Darwin project has the signatures of over 800 scientists who hold at least one Ph.D. Many more privately disagree but fear retribution from the Darwinists entrenched in academia.

You admitted that your knowledge of the debate is based solely upon “basic courses in middle and high school.” That is precisely the point Congressman Koenig and others are trying to make. While attending those public school classes you only heard one side of the debate—a side which is fiercely protected from any criticism. You also wrote that “[T]here is a large consensus of professional men of science who have concluded [evolution’s] validity.”  Would it surprise you that nearly all the ‘Founding Fathers’ of science were creationists? Men like Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, as well as later pioneers such as George Washington Carver and Wernher Von Braun, all believed in creation and the Bible.

Your assertion that the scientific community welcomes critiques of theories is simply not true. Peer-reviewed journals will not publish any research which even hints at questioning Darwinism. Then, evolutionists point to the lack of peer-reviewed research as evidence that creationism has no credibility. Your article appeared on the “Opinion” page. That is exactly the problem with evolution. Opinion is presented as absolute fact through hyperbole and overstatement. I have documentation and numerous articles to back up my statements and I would be eager to share them with anyone having genuine interest in honest examination of the whole debate.

Mr. Dresslar’s response to my letter:

My response to the response:
Mr. Dresslar:

You complain that many scientists who reject evolution “are not even experts in the field of biology” and mock them as an infinitesimal percentage of those creationist scientists who signed the Dissent from Darwin letter. Your statement betrays your unawareness that the debate over evolution goes far beyond biology. Evolution traces its roots back to the Big Bang which involves the fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, astrophysics, and mathematics. Evolution requires millennia which inevitably involves studying rock layers in the field of geology. Darwinism itself involves the fields of anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology. The remainder of PhDs on the Dissent from Darwin list are in these fields of study. To brush aside intellectual giants such as Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon (the father of empiricism and the scientific method) and suggest they are not qualified to speak about evolution is staggeringly arrogant and obtuse.  Never forget that truth is truth whether in the hands of a PhD or a layman. I could just as easily dismiss your arguments because your degree is in journalism and not biology. I earned a bachelors degree in theology. Should I therefore view you as unqualified to address creationism because you see it as purely religion?

Your appeal to the majority opinion is a common tactic, but irrelevant. You are attempting to employ a logical fallacy known as the “Bandwagon Fallacy.” Truth is objective and is not affected by majority or minority acceptance. The world was never flat simply because most of the “scientific experts” of the day were convinced it was. Columbus had trouble financing his expedition to India because people thought his theory was laughable. That majority of doubt and ridicule for his theory did not make the world any less round. The greatest scientific discoveries are often made by pioneers who reject the status quo of “accepted science” and strike out in search of the truth. Incidentally, where did Columbus find inspiration for his voyage? The Bible, of course!

You are correct in saying that many early scientists were intimidated by the Church (I assume you meant Catholic). Fear of speaking against the majority is exactly the same environment today in which those who dare to question Darwinism find themselves. A 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” exposes how scientists (Dr. Richard Sternberg–holder of two PhDs in evolutionary biology; Dr. Carolyn Crocker–degrees in microbiology, virology, and immunopharmacology; Dr. Michael Egnor MD–neurosurgeon; Dr. William Dembski–PhDs in philosophy and mathematics; Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez–PhD in astronomy) were fired or persecuted for even tentatively supporting Intelligent Design.

Regarding your closing sentences, the Intelligent Design movement was not begun as a way to “inject biblical teachings” into scientific education, but rather because of weaknesses in evolutionary theory for which those scientists had not found satisfactory answers. It was a quest for truth beyond the dogma.

In closing, I chose the words of my first letter very carefully and tried extraordinarily hard to leave mockery out of my comments. Sadly, you did not make the same effort. You began your response by admitting you knew you would disagree with my letter even before you read it. That betrays a closed-off narrow-mindedness which, ironically, is an accusation usually leveled at creationists and Christians! I did not always believe in creation. It took many years of careful, aggravating, and humbling research to finally see the weaknesses of evolution and the merits of creation. I encourage everyone to be brave enough to seek the truth in spite of the cognitive dissonance it creates. May the Lord shine upon you.



  1. Rob,

    You are an excellent thinker and writer. Keep up the good work!




    • Thanks Joe! It’s funny how polite this young man is in his personal correspondence with me compared with the snark in his editorials.

  2. Well stated. Concise. A very thoughtful inspection of the tendency of “intellectual” people to dismiss what they have not examined. Press on to the prize. God knows the necessity of struggle for those seeking truth.

  3. As a previous believer of millions of years and evolution, I can understand the rejection Mr. Dresslar is dealing with. The secular world can only see their world. They can not distinguish between the fallen world we live in, and the glorious world without sin that is to come. We as Biblical Creationist Christians are trying to overcome the non-believers with our intellect. Most worldly scientists are way to proud to give up there starting point, because they would have to concede to the alternative. God’s Word may be true!!
    May I suggest that we clarify definitions when discussing science. Observational science versus historical science. Show people that historical science is a faith based philosophical thought process that requires faith. We all have the same evidence. We base our starting point that our eyewitness was actually there at the beginning as He said He was. The secular world will be willing ignorant of the fact that a single catastrophic event occurred in the recent past according to our History book the Bible (2 Peter 3). Their starting point is based on faulty assumptions that require faith. If you can help a non believer to see that we are all seeking faith, it will help you open their mind to other possible scenarios of the past. Use professional third party tools, such Answers in Genesis articles and videos or Ray Comfort’s new video “Evolution versus God” to reach the non-believers. It takes the weight off your shoulders to see if they are open to discussing the topic further.
    Bypass their intellect and go for the heart, but remember most will reject the narrow path by which to be saved. That though, is not for us to decide, so soldier on with love and patience. Do not get drawn into an argument; it only puts up a wall that resists logic and reason. Prayer before discussions is essential.

    Fellow believer

  4. Wonderful replies. Fellow believer,

    • Thanks for reading the blog and taking time to comment, Evelyn. Have a blessed day!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: