FlCfS board member Jonathan Smith got our news release published in Winter Haven’s News Chief newspaper. (I think free registration is required to read the online paper.)
Of course, a response popped up a few days later. See the letter below the fold …
A recent letter to the editor bore the headline, “Intelligent Design Creationism a ‘Con.’ ”
Boy, talk about a “con.” Joseph Goebbels would have been envious of the board member of the so-called “Florida Citizens for Science,” who penned the letter.
The writer links, repeatedly, “intelligent design” with “creationism.” The two concepts are different, and the writer is either deliberately intending to mislead or he is woefully uninformed.
The writer shows complete disdain for the upcoming conference in Tampa, “Darwin or Design? Resolving the Conflict.” He champions scientific inquiry, yet condemns, a priori, an event that presumably will present evidence one way or the other. He should welcome such a scientific dialog instead of hysterically condemning it, sight unseen.
Darwinism is dead. Darwin’s major premise was that given enough time, anything was possible. In Darwin’s day, the consensus was that the age of the universe was infinite. We now know, with almost complete certainty, that the universe had a beginning, the Big Bang, at which point matter, space and time began (were created?). Also in Darwin’s day, microbiology was virtually unknown, DNA was yet to be discovered. Most recently, a British philosophy professor, Anthony Flew, after a lifetime of atheistic support of Darwinist evolution, concluded, at age 81, that DNA was far too complex to have evolved randomly, and he supported, reluctantly, intelligent design. Probability theory confirms this conclusion; there simply wasn’t enough time for DNA to “evolve” randomly.
The scientific evidence for intelligent design would fill several editions of this newspaper. The scientific evidence for macroevolution, the formation of a new species by random mutation and natural selection (Darwinism), would not fill the period at the end of this sentence. The missing links are still missing.
I am sure that the board of the “Florida Citizens for Science” will label me as an “ignorant, uneducated, arrogant, right-wing, radical, Bible-thumping fundamentalist,” which is par for the course for anyone who dares to criticize Darwinism.
Scientific inquiry anyone?
George W. Siwinski