Note: The majority of messages that I receive are in general agreement with the analysis that I provide on this website. Some, however, are not. In the interest of providing a full airing of views, I will be presenting some criticisms--unedited by myself--that I have received. Doug Linder.
Dear Professor Linder,
I read your page on the Scopes Trial with great interest. I could
have wished that there were a little more balanced approach to the subject
matter but what you've done with it is not handled too badly. Pardon
me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming that you are a professor of Law, and
so, without fear of misunderstanding, I would like to discuss some of the
aspects of the case, and other pertinent information..
The first order of business is that the reporter who filed the stories
was obviously no friend of Creationism, and the "Observer's Account" you
give is hostile as well. Her assessment of Bryan was not well founded.
If he were such as she portrayed, he could not have held the town in his
sway as she says. He'd make enemies too rapidly. Secondly,
this case was not about the evidence for or against Creation, but as to
whether the Tennesssee law was being violated. On the face of it
Clarence Darrow had no case, his client was clearly in violation, should
have been summarily convicted, and fines imposed. Darrow's attempts
to introduce "expert witness" were a clear case of frivolous and
contemptuous behavior before the Court. The judge was clearly right
for finding Darrow in contempt for trying to continue with the farce.
If he really thought he had a case, he and the ACLU should have gone straight
to the State Supreme Court with a class action suit questioning the constitutionality
of the Law. Also, by today's standards his "expert witness"
would be ludicrous, and laughed out of court.
One of the evidences Darrow would have introduced would have been Java
Man, the hoax foisted on us by Dr. DuBois, who hid the evidence that Modern
Man existed in the same strata as the giant Gibbon he wrongfully told the
world was the ancestor of Man. Another was Piltdown Man, who, nearly
fifty years ago was exposed as a hoax, the jaw of a man, and the skull
of an ape filed to fit together and being passed off as Man's Ancestor.
A third would have been Nebraska Man, made into such a wonderful example
of prehistoric life by the media, when we know today that all he was was
a tooth from an extinct pig. Fourth were the ideas of evolutionary
recapitulation, popularized by Haekel. These were disproved in 1874,
yet continue to invade the domain of biology, and zoology. Then there
was the supposed evolutionary tree of the horse. This too, is a hoax
including the so called, dawn horse still alive and well as the rock hyrax,
and the fact that in the middle of the tree there is one animal that has
two extra sets of ribs! As a law professor I wouldn't expect you
to readily grasp the import of that statement, but I assure you that an
honest student of Biology would be appalled at the gall of someone trying
to foist this off as an ancestor of the horse. There are numerous
similarities that occur, but I assure you that they are more evidence of
design than evidence of chance mutation.
So much for the inviolability and mystique of "Men of Science"!
The problem would have been simple if you'd stopped at discussing the
merits of the case. However, you've stepped beyond that into fields
with which you obviously are not well conversant. Moreover, you,
like so many others have been duped into thinking that the pronouncements
of the men in the white coats are words of the gods who know everything.
They aren't, and they don't!
Factual observation, experimentation, correlation, repetition, hypothesizing,
and theorizing are all at the heart of the earth sciences. However,
we need to make sure of our facts before we make pronouncements.
We must make sure of our results before we hypothesize. Bluntly,
and sadly, many in the scientific establishment are not doing this, and
have avoided exposure, perhaps even many in the faculty where you teach.
Some of these deceptions are deliberate as Pons and Fleischman, and others
are accidental. As an example of this, I sat in a class where the
Dean of the Biologic Sciences at the University of Utah tried to defend
Evolutionary Hypothesis by using Haekel's chart during a debate with Dr.
Morris! This was dishonest, and insufferable to those of us who have
really done our homework. He tried to use the court of public appeal
to students unprepared and unable to defend the truth to perpetuate a myth.
As it is, he made such a Dumbkoff of himself that he was nearly laughed
of the stage, and left thoroughly discredited in the eyes of students and
peers alike. This was only about eight years ago!
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but as a well educated man, a first
rate student of Nature, observer of facts, student, Theologian, Psychotherapist,
Lymphologist, amateur Paleontologist, and fair student of Law.
I do take some offense that you should be patronizing by classifying me
and many others out there as being any other than "First Rate". My
degrees are earned from some of the finest schools. My love of Paleontology
dates back to my early teens when I was called on to search for the truth
by a Pastor who saw how frustrated I became when I was confronted by Evolution.
I should hope that you would become irritated at your own words.
We aren't ignoramuses, but well studied men looking for truth. We
only want an honest platform for comparative analysis of the facts.
Until you've done your homework, you should cease making pronouncements
ex cathedra about subjects such as the Evolution/Creation discussion.
You aren't prepared to defend the case. Bluntly, the discussion of
such an issue requires many years of study, which you've obviously not
done.
Even within my primary field of expertise, I don't claim to have a
corner on all truth, but expect my views to obtain some objectivity from
my peers. I have differences and observations which have made me
a target too.
I applaud your inclusion of a student's letter. It is quite good,
if a little sparse. I also applaud the inclusion of some of the pro-Creationism
web sites. I have one or two to pass on as well. "Answers in
Genesis" http://answersingenesis.org/ , "Creation Science Resources" http://www.sixdaycreation.com/,references
, "The Institution for Creation Research" http://www.icr.org/, "First Choice
Youth Ministries Evolution Page" http://pages.tca.net/chag/evolut.htm,
to name a few.
Overall, I enjoyed your page. Just be careful about making poorly
founded pronouncements. It does your credibility no good.
Sincerely,
Bob Christopulos