Our Mail

We get four kinds of mail/email. We treat each kind differently.

We sometimes get fan mail. People write to us to tell us how much our web site has helped them. We appreciate the encouragement. We appreciate it even more when it comes with $15 attached . We don't print fan mail because we don't need to tell you how great we are.
We get hate mail. These letters are often filled with profanity, and usually contain many spelling errors. They are long on emotion, and short on logic, written in the heat of the moment. These letters are encouraging, too, because they indicate that we must have made some point so well that the reader has been deeply affected by it. The reader feels compelled to respond, but has no rational response. We hope that their frustrations will turn to disillusionment with the theory of evolution. We generally discard these letters without responding to them.
The third kind of mail comes from people like Ron, who have questions and are seeking for the answers. We always acknowledge these letters, even if we don't have time to answer them fully. We try at least to point these people to sources where they can find the answers themselves. Sometimes, if the question seems to be of general interest, we publish it along with our response.
The fourth kind of mail comes from people who just love to argue. Usually we ignore these letters. Sometimes we send a short response in an attempt to bait them into saying more. Sometimes we print part of the original letter, and/or the response.

We did that last month when we printed Peter's letter about evolution and philosophy. He responded:

I am dissapointed [sic] that you would not allow your readers to read my entire email. It may have been lengthy but to cut pieces out without showing the whole is not doing justice to my overall point. Thanks for the compliment about the coherency logic and overall interest of my letter, but you are doing little more than paying lip service to these things if you do not allow the readers to see the whole of my letter.

Peter

He is right. We did not do justice to his overall point. Nor did we try to. We make no pretension of providing an open forum for all points of view. As it says at the beginning of our web page,

"Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin of life."

One of the ways we do that is to analyze what evolutionists write, and comment upon it.

We sometimes print argumentative email just because it provides evidence that evolutionists really do say the things we claim they say. Last month we used the portions of Peter's email that showed that evolutionists:

do confuse microevolution with macroevolution;

do claim that evolution might be true even though there is no proof for it (because nothing can be proved);

do confuse truth with the opinion of those in authority;

do confuse philosophy with science.

Peter is free to argue that lots of microevolution adds up to macroevolution; that there is no need to prove evolution to believe it; that truth can be established by decree of the intellectual (or religious) elite; and philosophy is science. It is not our responsibility to provide a forum for him to do that, though.

Our intention was simply to show that people like Peter say things like these, and that these things aren't true. Having done that, we move on to other topics.

Quick links to

Science Against Evolution
Home Page Back issues of
Disclosure
(our newsletter) Web Site
of the Month Topical Index