David Grow obviously is committed to the evolution paradigm for
explaining observations in science. In reading his letter
(“‘Controversy’ response,” April 27, Gazette), one has to remember that his foundational assumption is that
evolutionist naturalism is true. Thus, he would use the lack of
production of vitamin C in both humans and apes as suggesting a link to a
common ancestor. He did not mention that guinea pigs also have the same
deficiency.

This example Grow used may suggest we do not have all the information
about this spot on the DNA. It also could suggest that similar DNA has
common hot spots for susceptibility to mutation. We also need to
consider, which a naturalistic observer would never do, that
similarities in the DNA code points as much to a common creator as much
as a common ancestor. If all was made very good and then mutations came
later, then mutations could be expected to affect similar points on the
DNA code.

Also, no scientific studies that question evolution are published in
science journals unless they can be debunked. Many findings are never
published, and so how can they have an “honest” critical review by those
who are already biased against the findings before they ever read the
study’s report? In the elite scientific community, evolution rules and
so evolution makes the rules. There was a similar situation back in
Galileo’s time.

—Steve Kern
Oklahoma City



Kern, husband of state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, is pastor of
Olivet Baptist Church and adjunct professor at Mid-America Christian
University.