John's Reply to Chris

Dear Chris,

David Pogge forwarded to me your reaction to my comments on his
web site, so I would like to take some time to respond to the points
you raised.  You probably were not expecting a reply from me, so
you can take it for what it's worth.  I was not originally expecting
to see Pogge make available my own letter either (and he deserves full
credit for providing the original text, something other creationists
have refused to do) but I do think that a continuing open dialogue
is both interesting and a good idea.  I enjoy the opportunity to
see other people's points of view.

> It made me absolutely livid to read the flawed but provocative
> comments that "John" had to make.

Thank you.  I'll take that as a compliment on the effectiveness of
my writing.

> 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.

I appreciate that.  That is the approach I try to adopt myself,
even though it is not always easy.
>
> 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.

What "deafening silence"?  Think about the material that is actually
being presented by creationists.  How much of it is really intended
for a scientific audience?  If creationists truly wanted a serious
scientific response to their arguments, they would publish them in
scientific journals which are appropriate for that type of discourse.
They don't do that.  (Neither have they substantiated their vague
accusations of censorship.)  Instead, they push their stuff to the
general public in the popular media.  There they are met with people
like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould who write for a similar
audience.  That is the only forum where one would expect a direct
response to creationist arguments, and that is where they get it.
(Most scientists don't even read the religious apologetics where
most creationist writing is found.) Since creationist material stays
unchanged for years or even decades, what would be the point of simply
beating a dead horse?

> John completely failed to engage in any
> form of scientific debate, remaining purely political, legal and
> character-assassinating.

As I explained above, this is not a scientific debate.  It is however
very much a political and legal one.  Creationism has no effect
whatsoever on the practice of science.  There are no creationist
research programs to cure cancer, develop disease-resistant crops,
or find oil and mineral deposits.  Only evolutionists do that sort of
thing.  What creationists do is try to gain political power.  From your
perspective in Scotland it may seem like an abstract philosophical issue,
but in the United States it is very real.  Creationism has been the
subject of important court decisions, and it has been an issue in
political campaigns.  The one theme that pervades creationist literature
is public education, and the fundamentalists are waging an all-out
war to destroy the public school system.  That is what creationism
means in everyday life, and that is why people like me react to it
on those terms.  I would recommend reading the essay by Lenny Flank at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/fundies.htm
for a summary of their goals and the nightmarish consequences should
they succeed.  I heard on the news that even you folks in Scotland
recently got a taste of what these people think of your country.

> 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.

The theory of evolution, and the evidence that is been accumulated
to support it, is common knowledge.  Why should I be responsable
for giving you a remedial course in O-level biology?  There are
libraries full of "so-called Knowledge" that are available to anyone
who wants to look.  It is a common creationist tactic to try to
shift the burden of proof, but that was dealt with over a century ago
(at least as far as scientists are concerned.)  If creationists think
they have something new to add it is up to them to make their case,
and do it properly.  Why should anyone want to respond to strawman
arguments and caricatures?  Stupid questions like "How can a dead cell
come to life?" or "What mutation can turn a dog into a horse?" simply
show that the asker has no idea what scientists actually believe.
Can you name a single creationist web site that accurately describes
the theory of evolution before attacking it?

> 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!).

You are missing the point.  Even if a new discovery tomorrow proved
that biological evolution was impossible, that would not make someone
like Henry Morris any less reprehensible.  Creationists are guilty
of deliberately misrepresenting and misquoting scientists in order
to advance their political goals.  Scientists are not immune from
questionable behaviour, but that is not the issue.  The original topic
on which I responded to Mr. Pogge was a specific court case in which
creationists tried to legislate a phoney definition of evolution
for use in public schools.  The judge described their effort as
"a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact."
That is still wrong, regardless.  Don't forget, I was addressing the
legal and political aspects, and have never pretended otherwise.

> 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.

The reason is quite simple--creationists have nothing new or of any
substance to present.  That this escapes you simply means that
professional scientists, especially those who have seen all of this
stuff before, understand these questions better than you do.

> 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?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the majority of educated people
actually feel that Dawkins has the weight of the evidence on his side?
Creationists are still free to present their ideas in the public forum,
(such as Pogge's web site, for example) but no one is forced to
pay any attention.  Maybe Dawkins does deserve some credit.  In a free
society, he is (gradually) winning.

> I don't know how aware you would be of Richard Milton, author of
> "Facts of Life- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism".

Unfortunately I am not really familiar with Milton or his
quarrel with Dawkins.  The only information I could find on him
on the Web describes him as a journalist who promoted a series of
off-beat theories in "Forbidden Science".  From the description at
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/shatter.htm it seems like the book
you mention is just a rehash of the same old creationist themes.

> And yet where was the Storm? A prize here, a documentary there
> but yet the Status Quo is as strong as ever.

Maybe there really isn't anything new.
>
> 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.

Milton is not a scientist, and his book is not a scientific publication.
What was he expecting?  It sounds like Dawkins is simply meeting him on
his own turf.  Just like "me", Dawkins may just be addressing the
issues which are appropriate to the forum in which they are presented.
I will stop there since as I have not seen the book the above is
only conjecture.  It does not however surprise me.  This debate is
very predictable.

> 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.

When Dawkins is speaking on this issue he is speaking for himself,
and he does like to promote his own beliefs on religion as well as
on biology.  Unfortunately it can sometimes be difficult for the
layperson to tell when his views are those of the scientific
community or when he is stepping beyond the domain of science to
promote his personal philosophy.  If you wish to be sure, stick to
reading "Nature".

> Thank-you for your time,
>
> Chris

Thanks for your input, Chris.  I do agree that it makes fascinating
reading.

John

P.S. - My name really is John.  There is no need to put it in quotes.