‘Professional biologist’ now belittles creationist student

A second one from Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D., Speedway, IN, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be used. He is the one who previously committed the informal logical fallacy of argument from authority (‘As a professional biologist …’), and his misunderstandings of variation and speciation were refuted here by Don Batten, also a Ph.D. professional biologist. Amazingly, Meiss had a knight in shining armour who feigned righteous indignation that Dr Batten should point out that he was equally well qualified in biology, and that arguments from authority aren’t worth a $3 note — see Dr Batten’ response. This time, Dr Meiss wrote a data-free letter belittling the creationist student who wrote this guest commentary. Meiss’s letter is followed by a response from our editors.

To Christopher H.

I was struck by the hopeful and naïve tone of your article on [your] website. You say, that with your high school education, you have already decided that it is the creationists who are scientific, and that you will steadfastly close your mind to evolutionary aspects of astronomy and geology. Why waste the space and time of one of our great universities if you are already so well informed? Here is my prediction — either you will learn, from bona fide scientists (not from those whose knowledge is third-hand) how the universe works (to the extent that we know) and will graduate as a competent beginning scientist, or you will retain your present mindset and graduate to become a mediocre technician with little chance of making any significant contribution to science. Keep your eyes, ears, and mind open for the next four years — you just might have them filled with wonders instead of fables.

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.
Speedway, IN

Dear Dr Meiss,

I’m sure Christopher will have plenty of arm-chair atheists trying to ram their anti-God dogma down his throat under the deceitful guise of ‘good science’ without you having to have a go too! [Note: Dr Meiss in a subsequent email insisted that he was a Christian, although frankly it was not detectable in either his tone or his content. But he insists that scientists must adopt ‘methodological naturalism’, i.e. act as if they were atheists, at least when it comes to the real world! Of course, there is no need to play by the self-serving rules of the game formulated by atheists. This is further addressed in Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science.]

You seem to forget that modern science was founded by men who believed the Bible was the revelation of their Creator. Furthermore, many competent, practising scientists today are Biblical creationists. See our Creationist Scientists Biography page for many examples from both the past and present, and Dr John Ashton’s book (right) for 50 living Ph.D. creationist scientists. In fact, it is no accident that the USA is the powerhouse of world science, even more than the size of the economy would dictate. Perhaps it is because of the historically strong influence of the Bible on the thinking of people of America (i.e. Reformation Christianity)?

I mean to say, how long can science prosper in a culture that believes that its collective thought processes are the ultimate result of accidental arrangements of atoms over billions of years following a cosmic accident, the ‘big bang’? And that the universe and everything in it, including us, have no purpose? How could such a culture trust its reasoning? And isn’t that what has spawned postmodernism, which is the denial of any such thing as truth — scientific or otherwise? Such is the outcome of the non-Christian (pagan) thinking encouraged by the doctrine of evolution that many of the universities are so enamoured with. And how can science prosper in a culture where morals such as honesty / truthfulness are seen as merely matters of personal opinion? Does not science depend on the integrity of its practitioners? Perhaps the developing concern over scientific fraud is a sign of the demise of science in the wake of the demise of its foundations, which is Biblical Christianity.

In other words, Dr Meiss, you are a part of the problem that will ultimately destroy the science that you espouse such love for. It’s quite ironic, really.

Sincerely,
Editors