I read with overwhelming amusement William Brian Fraser’s arrogant and angry response to Douglas Wellman’s creationist column.
Well, here we go again. Another absurd and empty argument against creationism. Bad childhood, William, perhaps? Some unteachable professor filling Fraser’s mind with evolutionary information such as, well, dating methods, for example? Dating methods have clocked out and been found wanting. Possibly Fraser’s frustrated endeavor in his article in attempting to karate chop creationism is due to a bad religious experience in his youth.
To browbeat creationism and say that it misinforms others and ignores data shows one thing: Fraser is scared to death that people may (God forbid!) believe that a Master Designer could have created something out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). In other words, Fraser is running scared.
If some expositors are correct in believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and even a minority of biology instructors accept creationism, that would show, would it not, that there is no need for the paranoia that Fraser is attempting to thrust forth in his lengthy epistle? Let’s face it, William, you weren’t there.
Also, to note, that Fraser uses some cultic term as the “Enlightenment” and maintains that this is what this nation was founded on. Check all fundamental records, Bill. The nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic and the Founding Fathers were Christian believers. That means they accepted a God who has full sovereignty, which includes speaking creation into existence at one time instead of promoting input maintaining that all organic beings that have ever lived on the earth descended from one primordial form.
You challenge Wellman to introduce data that would disprove evolution, but since you have placed yourself as the aggressor, you can’t prove evolution because, no matter what scientific data you come up with, because the data will, in places, contradict itself. Creation is an ample way to divorce contrived “scientific” data from the most simple and beautiful form of introducing mankind’s existence. To take the blowhard stance and use the abusive verbiage that he used on Wellman shows me as an ardent believer in creation that it perfectly illustrates his inability to communicate professionally, so that is exactly why I think this dynamic response is necessary. After all, Mr. Fraser, you weren’t there. In your own words, maybe you need to slink back home.
Perhaps, Mr. Fraser, if you hadn’t responded like a sore loser in a chess game, and afforded a more cordial response to Wellman’s article, then you wouldn’t receive this type of response to your abusive phraseology. For those who choose to accept evolution, that is their privilege and, reciprocally, those who cling to creation. We can coexist.