ESA Return to http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-b.htm. ESA

Open Letter to ICR
< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

Appendix B

The following document was submitted as a Letter to the Editor of Science concerning Roger Lewin's 5/17/85 news article in which he reported that researchers E. C. Scott and H. P. Cole could find no evidence of published evidence for creation and no evidence of censorship.

(Editor Daniel Koshland refused to publish it.)

Roger Lewin (1) quotes Scott and Cole (2,3) to deny both the existence of recent published evidences for creation and the possibility of censorship. Despite these denials, all three of these evolutionists have omitted discussion of a critical test of the evolution and creation models. This test is derived from my published evidence which implies that polonium halos in Precambrian granites originated with primordial polonium (4). On this basis, these granites must be the primordial Genesis rocks of our planet, having been created rather than having crystallized naturally, as evolutionary geology supposes. If the Precambrian granites, with their polonium halos, are indeed the handiwork of the Creator, then, in my view, it is impossible to duplicate them. On the other hand, if the granites just formed naturally, as evolution assumes, then it should be possible to reproduce a hand-sized piece of granite in a modern scientific laboratory. My first opportunity to present this test to the scientific community came in 1979 (5). There was no response to this challenge; so on every available occasion I have repeated it (6) and focused attention on how clearly the issues are defined: Success in duplicating a granite containing just one Po-218 halo would confirm the evolutionary view that both these entities formed by natural processes, and this would falsify my creation model. Failure in this experiment would mean the opposite is true.

Now Scott and Cole (3) say, "It is the nature of scientists to study and debate any scientific fact or finding that challenges existing scientific theories and models. If even one of the creationists' basic assumptions or concepts were supported by empirical evidence from any of the fields of scientific inquiry, scores of scientists would flock to the sites of the evidence and work earnestly to undo or 'falsify' prevailing scientific theories in light of this new evidence." Thus, when these authors were confronted with the falsification test in one of my publications (7), why didn't they issue an urgent call for "scores of scientists" to begin working "earnestly" on it?

A more penetrating question is why Lewin has maintained a deafening silence about this matter for over three years. He was present at the Arkansas trial when I testified about the polonium halo evidence for creation and explained the falsification test in detail. Yet he neglected to mention this decisive test of the two models in his coverage of the trial (8). I attempted to have this glaring omission (and other inaccuracies about my testimony) corrected through a rebuttal letter to Science, but my response was denied publication. Subsequently, I lost my position as a Guest Scientist at a national laboratory, even though shortly before my dismissal some of my latest research efforts (9) came to the favorable attention of the U.S. Senate (10).

How much longer will the scientific basis for creation be suppressed? For six years I have waited for those scientists who oppose creation to publish their results on the experimental challenge described above. Why would they wait interminably to refute what I claim to be unambiguous evidence for creation—except that they face an impossible task!

Robert V. Gentry

References

  1. R. Lewin, Science 228, 837 (1985).
  2. H. P. Cole and E. C. Scott, Phi Delta Kappan (April 1982), p. 557
  3. E. C. Scott and H. P. Cole, Quat. Rev. Biol. 60, 21 (1985).
  4. R. V. Gentry, et al., Science 194, 315 (1976).
  5. R. V. Gentry, et al., Nature 252, 564 (1974)
  6. R. V. Gentry, Science 184, 62 (1974).
  7. _____, Annual Rev. Nucl. Sci. 23, 347 (1973).
  8. R. V. Gentry, et al., Nature 244, 282 (1973).
  9. R. V. Gentry, Science 173, 727 (1971).
  10. _____, Science 160, 1228 (1968).
  11. _____, Nature 213, 487(1967).
  12. 5. R. V. Gentry, EOS 60, 474 (1979).
  13. R. V. Gentry, Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting, Pacific Division, AAAS 1, 38 (1984).
  14. _____, Physics Today (December 1984), p. 92.
  15. _____, Physics Today (April 1984), p. 108.
  16. _____, Physics Today (April 1983), p. 13.
  17. _____, EOS 61, 514 (1980).
  18. R. V. Gentry, Physics Today (October 1982), p. 13.
  19. R. Lewin, Science 215, 33 (1982); Ibid., p. 142 (1982).
  20. R. V. Gentry, et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 1129 (1982).
  21. R. V. Gentry et al., Science 216, 296 (1982).
  22. Congressional Record — Senate 128, 4306 (1982).
< Prev  TOC  Intro  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Concl.  A  B  C  Next >

The above page was found at http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-b.htm on November 1, 2014.

© 2004
Earth Science Associates