The Sunday Mail (SA) reported on two women who believe in fairies, even claiming to have seen fairies. (January 25, 1998, p.38)

A naïve person might quote these ladies as proof that fairies exist and think the case is clinched. That’s all that Holman did with creationism—he quoted a dozen creationists as if that clinched the case and proved, “the impossibility of evolution as an explanation for the existence of life on Earth.” (Investigator 86, p.44)

However, when a topic is controversial it’s not enough to quote a minority opinion as if that settled anything because it doesn’t. If a few quotes are sufficient to settle a controversial question then we’d all have to believe in fairies and in any other nonsense whenever a few supporting quotes turn up.

A writer trying to prove a controversial point needs to explain why he accepts the quotes he quoted—especially if he’s quoting the lunatic fringe.

Holman has dodged or ignored every request to explain why he thinks his dozen quotes prove creationism. His procedure for a year has been to ignore the substance of his questioners’ comments and write essays on sidelines.

For example, when Williams used the phrase “kitchen’s heat”, Holman described his employment in a kitchen—as if that’s pertinent to evolution!

Myself, I listed the sorts of evidence that evolutionists and creationists need to discuss such as fossils, vestigial organs, geological eras, mutations, etc. (#92 p.7) Holman dismissed this as a “view” and focused on the proverb, “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise.” (Proverbs 17:28) Again, that’s how Holman dodges—he picks a phrase that helps him ignore the question and discusses that phrase. The question, remember, is “Why accept pro-creation rather than pro-evolution quotes?”

Holman should stop dodging and give scientific reasons why we should accept pro-creation quotes and reject discoveries in palaeontology, genetics and geology that contradict such quotes.


This page is copyright © Frank P Russo 1999-2003

Web Analytics