Insectman Home
Presentations
Contact Us
My Testimony
Articles
Our Links
Get Saved
Exodus Mandate
The Lie: Evolution
 

Creation


Debate with Dan Part I

By Karl Priest April 7, 2009

Dan Radmacher is one of the few liberals for which I have some respect. The following email debate ensued after he censored my article “Evolutionism”. My words are bolded for easier reading. The dialogue is a pretty good example of the thought processes of an evolutionist.

Part I runs for during an October-November period in 1998. Part II is a couple of months in 2002. (Obvious typos have been corrected as found.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karl,

Sorry, but I saw nothing new in your piece that warrants sparking another interminable debate. If you wish to condense this to a letter to the editor, I will publish it, but I will not give up precious commentary space for a rehash of this tired argument.

As a PS, I hope one day that you will realize that a major part of the scientific method is that supernatural explanations are not acceptable. I am all for a rigorous examination and refinement of evolution theory to fit the facts, but once you start talking about a Creator, you are no longer dealing in science, you are dealing in religion. This does not mean that scientists cannot be religious, or even believe in a hand guiding certain actions. But the goal of science is to discover how things happen, not whether a Creator is behind it all. The practice of science does not go well when religion is forced into the mix, as Galileo would certainly tell you.

Dan Radmacher

Dan Radmacher (danrad@wvgazette.com)
Editorial Page Editor 1-800-982-6397
Charleston (W.Va) Gazette (http://wvgazette.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan:

I am not surprised that you are censoring my article. Previously, you have been fair enough to present both sides of the issue, but you (or, whomever makes the final decision) always found a way to keep a finger on the balance that tipped the scale toward your point of view.

I am surprised that you are so fanatical in your support of evolutionism that you failed to realize that not one mention was made of the Bible, or a sectarian belief. You seem to have a phobia about the "C" word.

Maybe (probably) my essay skills are not sharp enough to have clearly made the point ultimately intended: evolutionism should not be free of critical analysis. We do not need to use the "C" word at all. What do you think about that? Would you support the following policy?

Resolved: As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.

This statement was posted on a website which I visited.

Also, I would like to here your thoughts about my proposed policy statement made by the "real scientists" sans his reference to the "C" word.

Last, it seems a little inconsistent to say, "I will not give up precious commentary space for a rehash of this tired argument." shortly after you gave nearly one half page for a lady to attack the 1974 textbook protesters. It seems that after 24 years the Gazette would tire of that harangue. Talk about an interminable debate!

Dan, I strongly disagree with your decision about the article, but I am not angry with you. I sincerely want to hear your thoughts on the three questions I ask in this e-mail. Also, I respectfully request you reconsider your decision to not publish my op-ed piece.

Also, I would like to here your thoughts about my proposed policy statement made by the "real scientists" sans his reference to the "C" word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl,

If it makes you feel better, you can say I'm censoring your article. I feel we've been more than accommodating in allowing you and others with your viewpoint the opportunity to express it.

I am surprised that you are so fanatical in your Creationist dogma (actually I'm not surprised) that you didn't realize that my comment to you did not mention the Bible or any sectarian belief. I said that a major portion of the scientific method is the prohibition against the acceptance of the supernatural. I could go into a philosophical argument about why that is necessary, but I'll just boil it down to this: The supernatural is the easy way out. Once you start answering hard questions with "God did it," science becomes meaningless.

I have no problem at all with subjecting evolution to a rigorous scientific analysis, just as has been done since the theory was first developed. I do question whether high school science classes are the place for such rigorous analysis. I doubt whether most high school teachers, much less students, are qualified to conduct such an analysis. And I question why evolution, alone among the current theories accepted by various scientific fields should be the subject. There are many far more questionable theories that could be used to demonstrate to student’s scientific give and take without risk of raising the troubling issues of religion vs. science that the evolution vs. creation debate almost inevitably degenerates into. Why just evolution? Answer that question.

I'd be more willing to discuss the statement by the "real scientist" if you would name the person.

As far as the amount of space given to the 1974 textbook battle -- that was obviously a turbulent period in the history of Kanawha County schools. With the current atmosphere in the school system, it seems like an appropriate time to look back. We also gave space to someone protesting the viewpoint of the original author. (Karl’s note: See Henry Thaxton below.)

Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/22/98 12:25:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, danrad@wvgazette.com writes:

<< If it makes you feel better, you can say I'm censoring your article >>

Feel better? No. It's just a statement of undeniable fact. What's the difference in your censoring my thoughts and the Jackson County parents who wanted to remove objectionable books from their county schools? By the way, I don't feel badly. The only time my emotions would move to the extreme would be if you actually did give a fair hearing to the point of view that polls (You know, those polls that are currently so valuable in news reporting.) show the majority of the American people believe.

<< I am surprised that you are so fanatical in your Creationist dogma (actually I'm not surprised) that you didn't realize that my comment to you did not mention the Bible or any sectarian belief. > >

touche’

<< The supernatural is the easy way out.>>

OK. Let's not quibble here. Here is the point you should answer straight up:

You said, "I have no problem at all with subjecting evolution to a rigorous scientific analysis..."

Will you join me in proposing the adoption of the following statement?

Resolved: As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only approved theory of origins that can be taught in the science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that supports and questions evolution and its underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This discussion would include only the scientific evidence for and against evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of the universe and the diversity of life on our planet.


<< And I question why evolution, alone among the current theories accepted by various scientific fields should be the subject. > >

Such as?

<< Why just evolution? Answer that question.>>

Thanks for the softball. Here is the answer. Evolutionism is a LIE. Before you try to tell me evolution is a proven fact we need to define the term. If you are referring to "change" then there is no argument from the creationist camp. The trouble is evolutionists extrapolate from the observable to the mystical by proclaiming mud to Bud. That is not science--it is nonsense.

<< risk of raising the troubling issues of religion vs. science that the evolution vs. creation debate almost inevitably degenerates into>>

So, this means the next time a Christian minister is caught in some scandal, or some whacko bombs an abortion clinic, the Gazette will not risk the debate that inevitably degenerates into. (I am not talking about a simple news story.)

<< I'd be more willing to discuss the statement by the "real scientist" if you would name the person.> >

What difference does it make who said it? Suppose it was a high school science teacher, or a theistic evolutionist, or Henry Morris, or you fill in the blank. To identify him/her just clicks on presuppositions that block intelligent and rational discussion. Let's just consider the statements. Leaving out the "C" word, what do you object to?

<< With the current atmosphere in the school system, it seems like an appropriate time to look back.>>

You mean the Gazette has not looked back on that 24 year old event before?

Are you telling me the current science curriculum adoption is not pertinent?


<< We also gave space to someone protesting the viewpoint of the original author. > >

I missed it. Please cite.

Before I see it, let me set myself up for an apology to you. I can guarantee you didn't give equal space above the paper fold and on the same day of the week. 8>)

Let me buy you a cup of coffee some time. My distaste for your position on this matter does not equate to dislike of you. As you know, I have never met you. I have met Mr. Haught, who probably is more extreme than you, and have found him to be a likable person.

Karl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really do not want to get in an extended debate here (this is also what I'm trying to avoid for our pages, but at least e-mail has virtually limitless space, unlike our commentary pages). You say evolution is a lie. Most scientists disagree with you. It is not a proven fact (there are few real proven facts in science, just well-tested theories subject to revision as more information becomes available). Granted, some scientists do not. That is how most academic fields are. You could find historians who say that the Holocaust never happened. I would not want that taught in public schools either.

There are plenty of other theories that could be subject to rigorous scientific analysis -- the theory of relativity, many theories of quantum physics, gravity, time, etc., etc. Your obsession with evolution is clearly based on your religious beliefs, as is the case in most instances when parents protest the teaching of evolution.

As I said, I do not think high school is the place for a rigorous debate of the merits of evolution theory to take place. The issues are far too complicated (and simplifying them as "mud to Bud" does not render them less complicated -- except perhaps in your mind). College students can, and are, exposed to competing theories of origins. That is the appropriate
venue.

So, no, I won't join you in adopting the following statement.

You only owe me a partial apology. The reply was in last Sunday's paper (same day as the original). It was not given the same placement, nor was it the same length. But the author of the reply did not write to the same length, so I can't take responsibility for that. And the length does help determine placement, which is one reason the reply ended up at the bottom of the page, rather than the top.

We can discuss coffee (or a coke -- I'm not a coffee drinker) after the election. Until then, I'll be far too busy to think about it. My distaste for your position also does not reflect on you personally. Please keep in mind, though, that I do not share your obsession. I have not read all the books countering currently accepted evolution theory, nor have I read all those defending it. I have a fairly strong grounding in science (Bachelor of Science in psychology, and my advisor was a strong proponent of the scientific method). But I am not a zealot, and I don't plan on boning up on the issue.

Thanks,
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< You could find historians who say that the Holocaust never happened. >>

This is a straw man on the lines of the typical one (flat earthism) thrown up when the facts can't be disputed.

<< Your obsession with evolution is clearly based on your religious beliefs >>

What are my religious beliefs? What are yours and are your positions devoid of any influence from your beliefs?

<< I do not think high school is the place for a rigorous debate of the merits of evolution theory to take place. The issues are far too complicated >>

If that is the case then evolutionism need not be taught. Contrary to the alarmist claims that biology will fall apart without evolutionism the public school science curriculum will not suffer with macroevolution omitted. You are protecting a philosophy--not science.

<< College students can, and are, exposed to competing theories of origins.>>

Not in my day (1969-72) and ditto for my daughter (1995-present). The only thing that comes close is when the creation model is ridiculed. Also, I can put you in touch with college teachers who have suffered academic persecution when their creation position was revealed. I wonder why the Gazette doesn't do a story on that?

<<I'm not a coffee drinker>>

Neither am I; it was a figure of speech. You have a standing invitation to be my guest at the restaurant of your choice.

<< I do not share your obsession.>

Now Dan, my obsession is with a match while yours is with a hose.

<< I have a fairly strong grounding in science (Bachelor of Science in psychology, and my advisor was a strong proponent of the scientific method).>>

The scientific method I am familiar with uses the term "observation". Who was there when the earth and/or universe came into existence? Who has ever observed any thing chance from one type into another?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Creation op-ed
Date: 10/23/98 11:35:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: danrad@wvgazette.com (Dan Radmacher)
To: Kcpriest@aol.com

Please get serious. We refuse to publish long commentaries every day (nearly). We have a letters policy. If you wish to use your 200 words to discuss the issue rather than smear our editorial decisions as "banning" and "censorship" (if my goal was to censor you, your first piece never would have seen the light of day), feel free. Or, if you come up with a new, original take on the issue rather than the same tired arguments that you have presented before, let me know, and I'll consider publishing a longer commentary.

Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan:

I am serious. You sure get riled when the censorship charges are coming in rather than going out. I refer to "you" in the context of the Gazette. My following remarks refer to you as the representative of the Gazette and not you personally, but if the shoe fits...

Your statement ("the same tired arguments that you have presented before") is hypocrisy. Any time a parent protests an obscene book you run the tired old "book banning" angles and, when their is a protest about evolutionism, its "another Monkey Trial". Check your archives.

You frequently smear the aforementioned protesters as ignorant, narrow minded, fundamentalists (in the most negative sense of the word) and now, you refuse to take the same accusations! My, my, I thought I was sensitive.

My letter stands as presented--print it or censor it, the choice is yours, after all you control the so-called "free press".

Karl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine. The answer is no. You can have 200 words to discuss the issue. If you develop a longer commentary that meets my criteria (as you point out, I exercise control over this free press), I will print it.

I hope you realize -- though you probably do not -- that this decision is not based upon your viewpoint. I would not choose to print someone who rehashed the same old arguments in favor of evolution either, nor would I print a letter from them accusing us of censorship for exercising editorial judgment.

Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Dan, you have had to do two things during this e-mail exchange with me. First, to face the foolishness of evolutionism. Second, to face the fact you are just as biased as I am. What you do with those issues is out of my hands.

Maybe a lot of the motivation behind your decision to censor my article is based upon objective newspaper business knowledge. I am certain some of it isn't. Only you can search your heart and decide the ratio.

By the way, I spoke to Mr. Thaxton and he said he offered to compose a longer reply to the Caldwell diatribe you featured. If you had any sense of fair play and sincere interest in the feelings of the protesters you would have allowed him to do so. Also, placing the cartoon with his article was a little childish.

When the Gazette quits referring to text and evolutionism protesters in its usual condescending and insulting matter I will withdraw my indisputable charge of censorship.

It is laughable you how rationalize your censorship by renaming it "editorial judgment". Why don't you use your "editorial judgment" and cut out the offending words of my brief letter and let it run? Then the public can choose to invest 32 cents to get the information. You see Dan, we (creationists) want the public to get both sides of the issue.

In closing, you previously brought up the subject of religion. The following makes all other issues insignificant. Please read Romans 1:20-25.

Karl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The piece we ran was the longer piece he requested, I believe. I had nothing to do with the cartoon. Art is added by the copy desk when they put the page together. And you need to talk to Mr. Haught about the condescending and insulting manner with which the Gazette refers to text and evolution protestors. I write very few editorials on the subject, since I have figured out that the zealots will never give up.

Again, I have given you space, and if you come up with a fresh angle, I will give you space again. That offer is still open, despite the tone your last few letters have taken. In my judgment, the piece you offered broke no new ground. My judgment, in this case, is what counts. Get away from the simplistic "mud to Bud" arguments and deal with the valid criticisms of current evolution theory that even I acknowledge are out there and maybe we can talk. But if you continue to insult me and call me a censor every time I choose not to run one of your pieces, you will burn all your bridges here, and you will be shut out.

(Of course, you blew many of your credentials as a "scientific" creationist when you included a triceratops in your ark display, but that's another argument.) (Karl’s note: He is referring to an article about Bobby O’Connor and me which featured Bobby’s scale model ark.)

Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/26/98 11:45:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, danrad@wvgazette.com writes:

<< And you need to talk to Mr. Haught about the condescending and insulting manner with which the Gazette refers to text and evolution protestors. >>

Glad you clarified that. Every time I have spoken to my friend Mr. Haught he tells me you are in control.

<< Again, I have given you space, and if you come up with a fresh angle, I will give you space again. >>

I think my angle was fresh. The only thing I can think of would be for you to run a guest column from a creation scientist.

<< But if you continue to insult me and call me a censor every time I choose not to run one of your pieces, you will burn all your bridges here, and you will be shut out.>>

I call it "tough love", but you sure zinged me a few times. That is one trouble with non-personal discussions--you can't tell how mad the other guy is. And, I hate to do those 8>) things.

<< Of course, you blew many of your credentials as a "scientific" creationist when you included a triceratops in your ark display >>

See what I mean about being zinged.

I have no credentials other than horse sense. As for the triceratops criticism, how do you know one was not on the Ark? I ask that rhetorically because I know you do not want to debate this and neither do I. However, I can point you toward expert sources who can give you another perspective besides the evolutionism one you have.

Karl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horse sense would tell us the earth is flat, that matter is solid and that the sun revolves around the earth. Science tells us differently (though the church suppressed much of that information because of dogmatic attitudes). Horse sense is often faulty. I'll trust science, thank you. God gave us the gift of reason, and I imagine he would want us to use it. I imagine he would be quite upset that people would attempt to interpret the Bible in such a fashion that it contradicts what his gift of reason clearly tells us. Carbon dating tells us that the triceratop was not around at the same time as man, making your display illogical, if not ridiculous.

By the way, some of the arguments I've read to justify a 6,000 year-old earth are effective demonstrations of the dangers of allowing religious belief to interfere with scientific reason. Mostly, they boil down to: God could make Carbon dating say whatever He wants. If that's the case, why would God want to mislead us? Some of the arguments you've used also demonstrate this danger. Because you can't conceptualize the evolutionary steps that would lead from simple life to more complicated life forms (mud to Bud, as you so charmingly put it) doesn't mean they can't happen. The geologic forces that create coal out of dead vegetation is also hard to imagine, but that's the best explanation we have for it.

Dan

P.S. Sorry if I zinged you. I hope you realize that I am not taking, or intending, any of this personally. I don't appreciate being called a censor, but I can understand why you would take that attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan:

You spent two paragraphs telling me how dumb I am. I thought it was my good friend Mr. Haught until I read your name at the end. You also revealed that you are hung up on religion with a real bias against mine. Go back and read, very carefully, my proposed article. Other than my reference to the "C" word there is no reference to anything of a religious nature and to place the "C" word into that realm is only by your own narrow-minded prejudice.

The point of my article is that evolutionism needs to be held to critical analysis. You said, in a previous e-mail, that I should deal with the valid criticisms of evolution theory that even you acknowledge are out there. Dan, >please read my proposed article very slowly and take note of the non-creationist references that are cited. Be consistent--if you value free inquiry and open minded investigation you should join me in supporting the statement I proposed on 10-23. Come on Dan, what is there to fear?

Your references to a flat earth, etc., are common diversions brought up when logic fails. Even an intellectual pup, like me, can handle those nerf balls. Do you want me to?

Anyway, I get the strong impression that you think you are above my level of intelligence. No problem; I agree. What little intellect I have is pretty much sapped after a day with JHS students. So, I shared your comments (no name or ID other than "editor") with some friends. I have pasted some of their comments below. Be sure to go back and read my proposed article slowly, Dan, and take note of the academic credentials I cite. The "C" word people are not all small fry like me. In fact, anytime you (or, bring in a big dog scientist) want to debate (on strictly scientific terms) it can be arranged. And don't waste my time with excuses why debates are of no interest (or, whatever) because I can refute that with ease.

The bottom line is evolutionism is on precarious ground. It can only be propped up by thought control of students and censorship (Call it what you want and no offense intended, but that is what it is.) by the media. You can believe six impossible things a day if you want to, but charming, or not, a frog becomes a prince only once upon a time in a land of make believe. You can kiss a frog for a million years and, guess what it will be when your lips are released?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Karl’s note: The following comments, in italics, were from some friends and were sent to Dan.)

I do get tired of being labeled "backward" or "naive" or "a menace" all the time.

I once had a colleague shake her finger in my face and say "You are a part of an anti-intellectual movement in this country!"

Puuh-leeease! It's this kind of nastiness and groundless blaming and name-calling that finally last spring led me to a move that I think was purely from God. I decided to apply for membership in Mensa. As soon as I passed the IQ test and got my lifetime membership secure,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been buried in work as usual and __________. I am teaching Stellar astronomy this semester and I am having a great time with a class of 75 at __U. I hope to have some interesting comments for you next semester. I want to report that __________and I and 4 students are presenting papers at the American Astronomical Society Meeting in January and we have had a couple of major papers and three smaller ones in professional astronomical journals this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, this fellow is displaying his ignorance. If Triceratops is as old as evolutionists make it out to be, CARBON DATING has too short a half-life to go back that far. The amount of C-14 would be too small to measure. Other dating methods, like potassium-argon, date rocks, not fossils, and they have their own set of unprovable assumptions and errors that produce unrealistically old dates.

The complication of creating life from nonlife has to do with conflicting chemical reagents. Water, oxygen, needed to sustain life, are enemies to the reactions that might produce life. The chemicals needed to produce amino acids react with the chemicals needed to produce sugars. Sure, this fellow might be able to imagine, given enough time, a mud to Bud scenario. But it is a chemist's nightmare, and the reactions that might produce life are far outweighed by the destructive reactions that could break it down once the first fragile proteins or DNA molecules were made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein proved that the earth's rotating frame of reference can be explained mathematically quite satisfactorily. Horse sense vindicated. Some people just won't believe what their own eyes tell them.

Regarding coal formation: Dr. Steven Austin has hypothesized that coal was formed very quickly by laying down peat and other plant matter on top of clay lakebottoms and applying heat from lava flows on top of mud (wet clay). Coal has been formed in the laboratory by applying heat to plant matter on clay substrate in a short time.

Regarding triceratops and the ark: If God brought some of every animal aboard the ark, triceratops would have been included if alive at the time. The Scriptures don't say explicitly that triceratops was or wasn't already exterminated, so it is reasonable to assume they were there. Ask the editor whether he is just prejudiced, closed-minded, and unable to entertain previously unconsidered possibilities.

The editor must assume creationists are all fools. I'll happily debate him in public. You can reference me regarding this as well as my credentials.

(I have) five biology courses, including: intro to biology, cell biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and Darwinian biology.

(Karl’s comment: This comment was from a person who signed his name, but I will use his initials—T. H.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following was sent 10/29/98 at 1:26 AM from Dan)

>Your references to a flat earth, etc., are common diversions brought up when logic fails. Even an intellectual pup, like me, can handle those nerf balls. Do you want me to?

Please do. Explain how religous authority was not wrong when it said that the sun could not possibly revolve around the earth, and how it was not wrong when it said that the earth could not possibly be round. And, until you can, please leave me alone.

Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following was sent 10/29/98 at 1:33 AM from Dan)

Do you really want to put someone with five -- my, god *FIVE* -- biology credits up against a real scientist wit, say, 50 hours in biology? My mother graduated from UMKC with a Ph.D. in psychology, and she is a confirmed evolutionist. She even finished her doctoral dissertation. I'd put her up against this guy any day. She probably had more biology than this guy. Please get real. All these people who won't even admit who they are, much less what their credentials are.

I think this discussion is over.

Dan

(Karl’s note: Everyone identified themselves, but I omitted their data. T. H. was an exception and Dan was given his information. I have deleted for this report. In a private email T. H. did respond to Dan’s haughty (pun intended) remark. That email is below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following was sent 10/29/98 at 2:02 AM from Dan)

Karl,

Just for clarification, I was not trying to tell you how dumb you are. I was simply trying to illustrate the limitations of "horse sense." Please tell me how any of those limitations were incorrect. Were any of the assumptions I listed correct? Were any not logical purely on the basis of "horse sense"?

Horse sense is where science starts. You start, for instance, with the observation that the earth appears flat. You move on to the observation that you can see the mast of a ship before you can see the ship itself. This should lead you to the observation that the earth is not flat. I would only say that your are dumb if you take this observation and insist on saying that God makes it so you can only see the mast of the ship before the rest of it becomes visible. Then, I would not only say that you are dumb, but that you are insulting God with your stupidity.

Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<< Please do. Explain how religious authority was not wrong when it said that the sun could not possibly revolve around the earth, and how it was not wrong when it said that the earth could not possibly be round. And, until you can, please leave me alone. >>

First, my horse sense reply. The Bible clearly indicates the earth is spherical and the "church" authorities who got on Galileo were merely espousing the position of some prominent scientists of that day much like some church leaders do today. But, for the sake of argument, so what if the "church" authorities took that position all by themselves. Who has ever claimed the "church" is infallible? Not I. You? If you want to talk about imperfection let's talk about Piltdown Man. We can go tit for tat on a lot of mistakes in science and the church. You still cannot scientifically prove evoluion (remember our definition) occurred.

<<credits up against a real scientist wit, say, 50 hours in biology? My mother graduated from UMKC with a Ph.D. in psychology, and she is a confirmed evolutionist. She even finished her doctoral dissertation. I'd put her up against this guy any day. She probably had more biology than this guy. Please get real. All these people who won't even admit who they are, much less what their credentials are.>>

Dan, my mother is deceased, but were she living I would not set her up to debate frog to prince evolution. Also, you set me up to accuse you of hiding behind your mom's dress tail which I won't since I am no public debater myself.

Now, you want to "get real" so let's do. Send me your mom's available debate dates and some suggested venues and we will really get real. I don't know if we can get T. H.; we may have to settle for a high school biology teacher. Will you guarantee an objective feature article in the Gazette?

Second, I will snail-mail you a short, but more intellectual response written by an associate professor at the University of South Carolina.


<< I would only say that your are dumb if you take this observation and insist on saying that God makes it so you can only see the mast of the ship before the rest of it becomes visible. Then, I would not only say that you are dumb, but that you are insulting God with your stupidity.>>

I am admittedly a little feeble minded in my old age, but for the life of me I do not recall saying, or writing, anything near to what you are claiming in that statement. Have you got a citation where any creationist has made a claim like that? Could it be you are so brainwashed that you do not really know creationism does not equal ignorance? That is where a couple of cokes could do a lot of good. We may have differences on worldviews, but let's stick to matters of fact when we disuss/debate the matter.

It is probably a good idea to call a time out due to your election responsibilities and my nine weeks grading pressures. Hopefully, you will be willing to meet some time for a calm conversation on the subject. However, the debate issue is not closed. I hope you will find someone other than your mom though.

Karl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Debate
Date: 11/14/98 11:07:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Kcpriest
To: danrad@wvgazette.com

I assume you are rested from the election activity.

Let's plan the debate. What suggestions do you have?

Karl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: FYI
Date: 11/15/98 8:15:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Kcpriest
To: danrad@wvgazette.com

About a week ago Dr. John Reynolds of Biola University spoke at the local campus of the University of Wisconsin. What follows is a brief report of his time here. This is from The Pointer, the student newspaper at the U-W/Stevens Point, from November 12.

Headlined: Speaker says Darwin is wrong...
by Rhonda Miska...

Speaking before about 1,250 UW-Stevens Point students Thursday, a Biola University assistant philosophy professor told the audience that Darwin's theory for the evolution of man is wrong.

Dr. John Reynolds, attemping to answer the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?," said he believes that all life was formed by a creator. Renolds spoke last Thursday at Quandt Fieldhouse and said that evolution does occur in minor ways, such as a change in beak length in a species of birds.

The professor also addressed some common theories used to defend macro-evolution, such as Gould's so-called panda's thumb argument. However, he rejects the idea of macroevolution.

Reynolds emphasized each individual's right to believe what they choose without "being called a bad name," and refuted the stereotype that all people who disbelieve evolution are "backwoods Tennessee preachers." He also encouraged the audience to stay opened minded, listen to the opinions of others and research on their own. Most of all, he said students should engage in academic discourse and critically study both their religious and scientifically founded beliefs.

The audience had varied reactions to Reynold's speech, but many were surprised by its content. It wasn't what I expected," said sophomore Lisa Middle. "I thought he would just line up the facts, but instead he advocated that we should pursue our own ideas."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: FYI
Date: 11/15/98 9:31:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: danrad@wvgazette.com (Dan Radmacher)
To: Kcpriest@aol.com

Mr. Priest,

I am not interested in restarting this argument. Please refrain from sending me numerous e-mails. Otherwise, I will set my e-mail filters to trash anything you send me. This is your obsession, not mine.

Thank you,
Dan Radmacher

P.S. Even if you force me to take this step -- I will continue to be open to commentary and letters from you. You will simply need to send them through regular mail, or to the Gazette's main address. However, if you bombard that address with this kind of material, I will filter that as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reply on 11/16/98:

<< I am not interested in restarting this argument. Please refrain from sending me numerous e-mails. Otherwise, I will set my e-mail filters to trash anything you send me. This is your obsession, not mine. >>

Dan:

1. This e-mail will be my last unless you respond.

2. I have sent you only one e-mail (if you can document more, please let me know) except in response to YOUR e-mails.

3. Any bombardment is in your imagination. Which is where evolution belongs--not in a tax-supported classroom.

4. You made the debate challenge in response to a comment from T. H. who you felt was beneath your level of intelligence. Now you are backing down because you know the illogic of evolution would not prevail on a level playing field with an opposing model.

5. You are a censor. You censored my article which I can accept, but when you censored my letter it was pathetic. Please do not be hypocritical and allow the Gazette to accuse parent text protesters of censorship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: FYI
Date: 11/16/98 11:25:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: danrad@wvgazette.com (Dan Radmacher)
To: Kcpriest@aol.com

Just to clarify -- please don't take this as an invitation to respond.

You sent two e-mails in two nights (Saturday and Sunday). I was out of town, so I got them at the same time and thus did not have a chance to respond to the first, even had I been inclined (I was not). If you need me to document this, I will. I was simply attempting to nip what I foresaw to be a potential problem in the bud.

And, once more, if you want to submit a letter meeting our 200-word limit to present your ideas, it will be published. We provide a forum for ideas, not for people to bash us and call us censors. And, once more, if you submit a commentary that meets my criteria of breaking new ground in this tired debate (so tired that I will not even respond to your juvenile barb in #3), I will publish it.

As far as your #4, I never said anyone was below my level of intelligence. I merely indicated that his professed five or six hours of biology hardly made him an expert. I may have jokingly offered my mother up as a debating partner, since she took more biology in her effort to achieve a Ph.D. in psychology. Only a fanatic would have taken that offer seriously.

Please do not waste more of my time unless you wish to submit a letter or an op-ed for consideration.

Dan

P.S. If it makes you feel better, I rejected a commentary from H. John Rogers today on much the same criteria that I rejected yours: it broke no new ground and would only serve to inflame the rabid on both sides of the issue (his is Kenneth Starr and the Church of Christ). It truly is nothing personal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: FYI
Date: 11/17/98 8:57:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Kcpriest
To: danrad@wvgazette.com

Dan:

<< I rejected a commentary from H. John Rogers>>

To try to tie my situation to Mr. Rogers is bogus.

You sure are fanatical about trying to rationionalize your censorship practices.

Karl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Karl’s comment: this is T. H.’s response to Dan’s comments of 10/29/98.)

This editor can't read, I guess, thinking five courses equals five credits. That's about twenty hours of biology. He also is obviously quite emotional, which is evidenced by his knee-jerk reaction. Does he fail to understand what a MS (physics) or an AB (chemistry) is? Physics is no pseudo-science or squishy science like zoology. Advanced math is required.

The editor Of course, plenty of evos are college-indoctrinated. It's obvious most of them don't know how to think, so I can't say they are college-educated. Thank God He showed me from the Bible the source of empiricism. Most technical specialists with PhD's don't have a very good grasp of the philosophy of science, although they may think they do. It wasn't until after I received my MS in physics did I realize how little I knew about the philosophy of science. I sure felt cheated. I've done a lot of thinking about it the last ten years or so, and that has helped somewhat.

Why did the editor say, "All these people who won't even admit who they are, much less what their credentials are?" I gave my name. Feel free to use it. I don't hide my belief in creation.

My extensive cross-training in science gives me some insight where specialization doesn't. Between biology (about 16 undergrad hours and 3 grad hours), chemistry (about 24 undergrad hours), and physics (25 undergrad hours and 30 grad hours) I have over ninety hours of hard-science work, thirty-three of which is graduate-level work. I published a thesis which my advisor wanted to submit for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, but I declined. Of course, my education is fifteen plus years old, so I'm a little rusty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few years latter Dan and I had another debate (part II) which turned out most interesting.