Chris' Letter

To Whom it May Concern,

I came across this site about three months ago and I must say I
was very impressed by it. I found the uncompromising stance
against evolution extremely tantalizing, (especially as I have been
used to the Talk.Origins site for a few years). I congratulate all
those who have contributed to the site and the members of the
organsiation who have worked together to produce such an
intriguing site- and made it free access by putting it on the Web.

Although I could lavish paragraphs of praise upon you all, I do not
wish to lose sight of why I am writing. It was upon reading the
correspondence between "John" & "David Pogge" that I felt like I
had to write in and make a response (for what it's worth)- I hope
you don't mind!

It made me absolutely livid to read the flawed but provocative
comments that "John" had to make. It seems to me that he
characterises the sort of closed minded Church of Science pilgrim
that I so often encounter here in Glasgow, Scotland- indeed the
whole of the United Kingdom. However, much as the emotive part
of me wants to be a harsh critic of such characters, I will defer to
Pogge's respectful and indeed highly rational approach which made
 his responses even more potent.

Like Pogge, I too feel frustrated and dumb-struck by the "deafening
 silence" coming from the Evolutionists when it comes to the
materials and facts being presented by Anti-Evolutionists and
Scientific-Creationists. John completely failed to engage in any
form of scientific debate, remaining purely political, legal and
character-assassinating. If he is so confident about the so-called
Knowledge that Evolutionists have claimed to produce in way of
answers to the questions that your site poses from the outset, then
 let him produce those answers- or refer us to someone who can. If
 not, then he should do the rational thing and accept that
Evolutionists cannot answer these questions and that they never
have done. In which case the "sleaze" and "lies" he is so fond of
accusing the Creationists of cascading should be rightfully
apportioned to the Evolutionists. Of course, I don't imagine he will
(I'm sorry, I hope I'm not being critical of character again!).

The strength of the case put by Pogge in his reply is (for some
reason that is completely beyond my comprehension) still unable
to send Evolutionists reeling. I know that the Copernican Revolution
 came about in a climate of extremes- where truth was second to
the self-interest of the Powers-That-Were. But yet, in two nations
where people would die for the Freedom of Expression (Britain and
the USA) the Pogges of this world are ignored, dismissed and
made light of. Worse still the Dawkins of this world are famed,
promoted and considered Supreme Heavyweights. Credit where
credit is due anyone?

I don't know how aware you would be of Richard Milton, author of
"Facts of Life- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism". However, it was
 his book which introduced me to the school of thought which
refutes Darwinism in a purely scientific manner. I was fortunate
enough to have come across it in the winter of 1992, shortly after it
was first published in Britain. If you've read the book, then you will
know as well as I that it succeeds in doing what the title suggests.
And yet where was the Storm? A prize here, a documentary there
but yet the Status Quo is as strong as ever.

When the book was released in paperback, it included Richard
Dawkins review of the book in the preface. How frustrating it was to
 read his criticisms which were purely emotional and without a
single attempt to refute Milton's reports in a scientific or rational
manner. Just like "John" I thought.

At around the same time as I found your site, I also came across a
 site the Milton had created in which he writes an open article
which  does two things: firstly, voice dissent at the decision of the
Times  to halt a review of his new book after a major campaign by
Dawkins  to prevent the Times from doing so. Secondly, he
mentions  scientific findings which he didn't include in his book, but
 nonetheless make for thought-provoking reading. Regrettably, I
can't locate that sight again- but I will continue to search for it. But
the main point is this: why was Dawkins so determined to prevent
Milton from publishing his article in the Times? What was he afraid
of? Why will he not admit a voice of dissent when it is good
scientific practice to do everything you can to try and falsify a
theory. Why would he not accept the data of Creationists, whilst
accepting the data of Evolutionists- It comes back to the "Honest
Science" article that you have on your site?

Here in Britain, the debate isn't so much one between Christianity
and Evolution. Rather there is no debate at all, just heretics voicing
 opinions that Arch-Bishop Dawkins and his underlings dismisses
as "soldiers stepping out of line". One thing about Dawkins though
is this- he has often advised the public to "put your faith in
Science" and even conceded on a televised debate that the belief
in Evolution and the belief in Christianity differed only by a matter of
 "taste". What then, makes Evolutionists so different from
Creationists- when both are "scientists" and both require a degree
of "faith" in the unknown? But, naturally, your organisation is
already well aware of that... it's just a pity that more people aren't.

Well, I fear I grew tiresome a long time ago. No doubt you receive
many of these messages which seem to preach to the converted
as it were. All's that remains for me to say is keep up the excellent
 work and please continue to reply to the rhetoric of the
Evolutionists; it makes fascinating reading- especially as such
exchanges are filled with knowledge and reason. I believe it is an
Islamic piece of thought which says: "One learned believer is worth
 more than a thousand ignorant worshippers" and going by the
strengths of your site, that makes you all priceless.

Thank-you for your time,

Chris