Some scientists also embrace creationism

At issue | Dec. 26 column by Roger Guffey, "How about tax incentives for museum about evolution, natural history?"

As scientists who reject Darwinian evolution, we are writing to correct the many errors found in the Dec. 26 anti-creationist column.

For one, the guest columnist, Roger Guffey, claimed there were no "serious" scientists who are creationists. We are full-time Ph.D. researchers with the Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis in Northern Kentucky, and we will be helping to design the full-scale Noah's Ark and other attractions to be built north of Lexington.

There are thousands of serious scientists who doubt evolution. At the Creation Museum, we have full-time staff with earned doctorates (one from an Ivy League school) in astrophysics, geology, cell biology, genetics, medicine and the history of geology, plus several adjunct speakers and researchers who hold doctorate degrees.

We point out as well that most of the founding fathers of science were creationists, and many were contemporaries of Charles Darwin.

While scientists who reject evolution make up a minority of the scientific community, it is a significant number nonetheless. And when is truth determined by the majority anyway?

If germs that are resistant to drugs is the best evidence that Guffey can present to defend his belief in molecules-to-man evolution, then evolution is in sadder shape than we thought.

For "fish to turn into philosophers" requires a mechanism for creating new and useful genetic information. That does not happen when germs resist antibiotics. Either the drug-resistant germs were already in place before the antibiotic was used, or the DNA information was already there in another bacterium and transferred (in the form of a plasmid via a tiny tube) or where it has arisen from a genetic copying mistake (mutation). Regardless, the information decreases.

When you apply antibiotics to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed and any genetic information they carry is eliminated.

In other words, the surviving gene pool carries less information, the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution requires. Such natural "selection," first described by creationist Edward Blyth, is a fact of life. Guffey implied that we do not accept it, but it does not turn fish into philosophers.

Also, and contrary to the columnist's claim, the state of Kentucky has not approved the application for a sales tax rebate for the Ark Encounter. Even if it did, the Ark project will not take money from the state budget.

The people who would pay taxes for the Ark's operation will be the Ark Encounter visitors, who will pay sales tax at the attraction (for tickets, food, and concessions), and then the state will rebate a portion of the sales tax to the Ark Encounter based on attendance performance standards.

Incredibly, the columnist claims that tax dollars should be used instead to build an evolution museum. But there already are hundreds of pro-evolution museums all across the country, and some are receiving millions of taxpayer dollars each year.

These natural history museums heavily promote an evolutionary worldview, and yet the columnist is alarmed about one new facility that will compete against hundreds of pro-evolution museums?

He then suggests that we are in it for the money. Well, we can certainly use our doctorate degrees elsewhere and earn much more money. The accusation is a sad form of ad hominem argument against us.

Lastly, the questions posed by the columnist that he uses to supposedly undermine the validity of the Book of Genesis have been addressed by us over and over again in books, magazines, lectures and on the Answers in Genesis Web site. Guffey presents his list as stumpers. He apparently has not done his research into what we have actually researched and now teach.

For the moment, let us take on two of them, and categorically state that vestigial organs are the opposite of what onward and upward evolution requires (there is a loss of genetic information), and we also reject the urban myth that human babies are occasionally "born with tails" (which instead are a type of fatty tumor and are merely embryological or pathological defects; there are no bones or muscles in them and thus they have absolutely nothing to do with an animal-like tail).

It's amazing how one evolution activist can make so many errors in a column which ended up in a major U.S. newspaper.

It only reveals his dogmatism and fear of the opposing position. Would this person be willing to engage in a public debate on the topic of creation vs. evolution?

Related stories from Lexington Herald Leader