CREATION SCIENTIST SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AT UT ALUMNI GYM
Robert V. Gentry, an internationally recognized authority on radiohalos whose first book, Creation's Tiny Myitery,
has just been published, will speak at the University of Tennessee Alumni Gym on Monday, April 13, 1987, at 7:45
p.m. In his talk, "Should Creation Science Be Taught at the University of Tennessee?", Dr. Gentry will discuss
the evidences for the Genesis record of creation documented in his book.
Dr. Gentry's easy-to-follow, yet in-depth presentation, captures the interest of scientists and nonscientists alike.
Tickets ore available at the University of Tennessee Central Office and will also be available at the Alumni Gym
the evening of April 13. UT student tickets are free with an ID, and admission for the general public is $2.00.
Gentry's book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, is available at:
B. Dalton Bookseller — East Towne and West Town|
Rechenbach's — Cumberland
Lamstone Book Branch — East Towne and West Town
Baptist Book Store — Merchants Rd.|
UT Book Store — Student Center
AN OPEN LETTER TO:
Dr. Frank Press, President
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
The issues at stake in the famous Scopes Trial of 1925 will be re-examined Monday Evening, April 13 at 7:45 p.m.
in the light of the accompanying OPEN LETTER to America's most prestigious scientific organization.
Dear Dr. Press:
The February 1987 issue of Physics Today (p. 66) mentions the National Academy of Sciences
as one organization which is opposed to the Louisiana creation-science law, now being decided
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Doubtless you already knew this because the booklet written by you
and others, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (National
Academy Press, 1984) is quoted in the Physics Today report as follows:
..."It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its account of the
origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It subordinates evidence to statements
based on authority and revelation. Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the
special publications of its advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in
light of new data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism
has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid..."
More than anyone else, you should know why the above quotation is meaningful to me.
Remember last August, Dr. Press? On August 4, 1986, I sent an overnight letter to you
requesting a response to the evidences for creation, which I was to present at the International
Conference on Creationism. In my letter I quoted the above statement and challenged you to
show just where my published evidence for creation had been invalidated. On that occasion I
invited you to bring as many evolutionists as you could persuade to come with you to
accomplish this task. No response was received either then or about a month later when I again
wrote to you. All of this is related in detail in my recent book, Creaion's Tiny Mystery (p. 196), a
copy of which is enclosed.
Despite the nonresponse of the Academy to the challenge of creation last August, the Physics
Today report shows the Academy is remaining adamant in its position that evidence for creation
has been invalidated. I am therefore offering you, and/or whomever you may choose to send in
your stead, another opportunity for refuting the evidence for creation published in my scientific
reports and summarized in my book. The details of this opportunity are outlined in the
accompanying press release, which describes my forthcoming speaking engagement at the
University of Tennessee in Knoxville on the evening of April 13, 1987 under the sponsorship of
the Society for Creation Science.
Certainly it would seem that you should have no problem in obtaining the help needed. The
Physics Today report mentions 72 Nobel laureates, who oppose the Louisiana creation-science
law, including the very well-known Dr. Murray Gel-Mann of Caltech. If that avenue fails, I
suggest you contact the most outspoken evolutionists in the country, namely, Drs. Carl Sagan
and Stephen Gould. In fact, the Physics Today article quotes Dr. Gould, a Harvard University
paleontologist, as saying that creation science is an oxymoron-"a self-contradictory and
meaningless phrase, a whitewash for a specific, particular and minority religious view in
America: Biblical literalism." In view of his stated interest in demolishing creation science, it
would seem only fair that Dr. Gould be given the opportunity to speak first in representing the
Academy on the night of my presentation at the University of Tennessee. I hope you can
persuade him to come with you.
If the evidence for creation remains unrefuted after the Academy's response on April 13, then
Americans need to know: On what grounds, if any, will the Academy still object to creation
science being taught as a model of origins in public schools and universities?
Robert V. Gentry