Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:00 AM (#)
A July 10 letter to the editor responded to a well-reasoned criticism of evolution by insulting the education of the previous writer. Then the author did something devious - he suggested the letter be placed on the Religion page instead of on the editorial page, because creation is a religious belief.
This would serve as a way to censor creationist arguments, because religion letters only appear on Saturday and are limited to 150 words, while a normal LTTE is 200 words. Clearly, the author does not want to see arguments he dislikes, so he wants them moved to a a "ghetto" where they will be much more limited.
Of course, there is a huge double standard here. The July 5 letter was a direct response to an earlier letter insulting those who believe in a young earth as either ignorant or liars. But the author of the July 10 letter was unconcerned about the original attack, only the response. I wonder why that is?
Of course, we all know the answer. He wants to shut down debate from the other side.
I wouldn't be surprised if H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg agrees with him. Zaltsberg banned further publication of letters to the editor dealing with evolution vs. creationism after a lengthy debate in 1996/1997, so I can see that happening again if the debate becomes heated.
But with the Herald-Times, you never know what they will do. After all, The H-T rejected a letter to the editor I submitted in January 2011 because I quoted a Bible verse in a letter about abortion, even though my LTTE was well within published guidelines for letters. (The letter was eventually printed intact.) The H-T even deleted a comment I posted on HeraldTimesOnline.com for quoting articles published in the print edition of the Herald-Times. I can easily see letters by creationists banished to the Religion page while evolutionists are given free reign on the editorial page.
As believers in Jesus Christ, the world often makes us feel stupid and uneducated. Why do we cling to our superstitions when science clearly indicates that evolution is true? But evolution is not true at all. I linked to a treasure trove of articles at Mr. Sepetjian's blog a few months ago - a great resource for Christians to defend against the lies of the world and the efforts to shatter our faith. Here are links to his most recent posts on evolution.
♣ Olaf Roemer & The “Objectivity” of Science
♣ Pre-Suppositional Apologetics: The Fundamental Assumption of Science
♣ Science vs. Evolution: Fossils, Cavemen, & Transitional Forms
♣ Big Bang Defeater
♣ Science vs. Evolution: Primitive Weapons Do Not Prove Primitive People
♣ Science vs. Evolution: The Relationship Scam
♣ Science vs. Evolution: A Mammoth Lie
♣ Science vs. Evolution: Pre-Historic or Pre-Flood?
♣ Science vs. Evolution: Deconstructing the 500 Million Year Old Tegopelte
♣ Science vs. Evolution: Reporting the Unobserved
♣ Life-Sustaining Planets: We’ve Discovered One, We’re Just Not Sure Where it is Yet
♣ Age Indicating Factors: The Great Barrier Reef
♣ Evolution Theory & The Scientific Method
♣ Extinction – In Seven Words
♣ Myths of Evolution: Uranium Evolved From Hydrogen
♣ Age Indicating Factors: Short Period Comets
♣ Age Indicating Factors: Mississippi Delta
♣ Why Humans Did Not Evolve
♣ When Folly Passes For Wisdom
♣ Thinking it Through: Did a Copying Mistake Build Man’s Brain?
♣ Falsifying the Nebular Hypothesis
♣ The Velocity of Light: A Thought
♣ The Universe was Designed to be Discovered!
♣ Venus in Transit
♣ Quorum Sensing: Bacteria’s Call to Arms
♣ “Houston, We Have Left Science.”
♣ The “Simple” Cell vs The Ford River Rouge Plant
♣ Will the Real Flat-Earthers Please Stand Up?
♣ Age Indicating Factors: Oil Pressure