Tuesday 22 Jul
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg


OKG Newsletter

Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · ‘Evolution is...
Letters to the Editor

‘Evolution is dead'

Steve Kern September 7th, 2011

I want to make a pronouncement in response to the growing number of responders to my letters. When I was a kid in the 1950s growing up in Scottsdale, Ariz., when it was just a hole-in-the-wall, my dad would wring the neck of a chicken, pluck it and that would be our lunch after church on Sunday.

I can remember the poor chicken flopping around on the ground after having lost its head. That gives us a vivid picture of how I see these latter days of evolution dominance being played out.

Evolution is dead. It just hasn’t come to realize it yet as it flops around like that headless chicken. The head it has lost is science itself. It still flops around with its just-so stories: microevolution being presented as macroevolution, its pretended transitional forms, its unprovable faith assumptions of radio metric dating, its absurd notion that time and chance produced complexity of design, the huge leap of faith that believes inanimate matter can produce intelligent information, and nonliving objects can transform into living.

Evolution will stop its flopping around and succumb to its inevitable death when honest seekers of truth look at all the scientific data that continues to grow in opposition to its crumbling foundation. Over time, the facts will finally convince all nonreligious evolutionist zealots that evolution is nothing more than a faith-based attempt to create the illusion of the existence of something that was never there.

Oh, there will be those who continue to hold tenaciously to their faith, but most will finally realize evolution’s time in the sun has abruptly ended.

Malcolm Muggeridge agrees: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

The number of those who agree with Muggeridge is growing. That number includes me.

—Steve Kern
Oklahoma City

Kern, husband of state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, is pastor of Olivet Baptist Church.

Oklahoma Gazette provides an open forum for the discussion of all points of view in its Letters to the Editor section. The Gazette reserves the right to edit letters for length and clarity. Letters can be mailed, faxed, emailed to rcollins@okgazette.com or sent online at okgazette.com, but include a city of residence and contact number for verification.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


09.07.2011 at 06:49 Reply

As usual a fact free response. I don't think that Rev. Kern even know who Malcolm Muggeridge even was.

This letter is a joke, and a very bad one at that.  Can the Gazette find a creationist who appears have enough brain power to do more than merely parrot the worst of the worst of the creationist movement? 

Sometimes replying to him I feel like someone beating up on a nine-year-old girl: it is hardly a fair fight.  But I guess Kern is the smartest they can find.  Which is very telling.  Maybe I should thank Kern for unwittingly demonstrating just how pathetic creationism really is?


09.07.2011 at 09:41 Reply



As a person who professes to be someone of faith, you come in here taking shots at what you imply is the faith that science has in the knowledge they’ve garnered since the age of enlightenment.  Faith is faith, and you want yours to be acknowledged as much as science.  But the problem is, science consists of provable facts, it’s not what you describe as faith.  That doesn’t negate the irony if you choosing to berate someone for what YOU refer to as faith.  Science isn’t coming into your church and telling you “Christ never existed,” but that’s a lot like what you’re trying to do to science.


You choose to embrace this young earth theory for a reason I’ll never fully comprehend.  Frankly, I find that the complexities that have lead to our being can easily be used as proof of God.  You and I both know that water is the primary building block of life on this planet.  You also know that organisms will grow in water.  So this earth is a very old Petri dish.  If you deny that organisms grow and multiply in water, then I’ll be more than happy to pour you a glass of what you’ll consider pure water.  And in a couple days you can tell me how that worked out for you.


No, you are denying what would be an amazing opportunity to argue the existence of God in lieu of perpetuating the unprovable theory that God snaps his fingers and then there was man.  You’re more than welcome to go on believing as you do, but if you’re to win people to your point of view you’re doing a disservice to humanity by using faith as fact.  Science has facts. 


If I were you, here are a few things I’d use to argue for the existence of God.  However, the caveat here is that you have to accept evolution.


1.        Our planet is in a very specific orbit.  If earth were just slightly closer or slightly farther from the sun life as we know it would not exist.


2.        The moon gives rise to necessary tidal motions.  Without which the water which contains micro organisms would have never been stirred thus creating life as we know it.


3.        Our moon has a non-decaying orbit.


Here are a few things that endorse evolution.


1.        Why do human have an appendix?

2.        Why are some humans born with a vestigial tail?

3.        Why are people with Sickle Cell Anemia resistant to Malaria?

4.        Why can we selectively breed traits in and out a species?


Let us also talk about the various structures on this planet which defies the engineering knowledge of Biblical man.  Stonehenge is a good example.  The quarry the stone came from was transported no less than 25 miles away.  The pyramids are another talking point.  The great pyramid has each of its sides perfectly facing north, south, east and west.  Also, the great pyramid contains two shafts which would have perfectly lined up with 2 specific stars during the era of its construction.  What of the Mayan pyramids, or the heads on Easter Island?  There are several references in the Bible which might indicate that mankind might have been visited by extraterrestrials.  If you take a man of that era who can only interpret something coming from the sky as “God” then it stands to reason that’s how it would be referenced in ancient texts.  The level of sophistication in the design and construction of the aforementioned structures would surely endorse the possibility of other worldly interventions.  It must be acknowledged that building these structures even with modern equipment would be a daunting task.


What I’ve said here is no more a conclusion than what you have to offer.  My point is that if you believe something it’s true to you, that’s what faith is.  If you can use science to prove that you’re right, more power to you.  But my faith is born from a bevy of evidence which runs counter to what you believe.  Bring me enough proof, and we’ll talk.


09.08.2011 at 01:37

I have to side more with Steve on this one. 

I accept evolution only as a working hypothesis, something that requires a leap of faith, or at least the suspension of disbelief.  Scientific method 101: accept that you can be wrong but assume you're right long enough to get proof either way.  We've been rewriting the textbooks to update models of the heavens and molecules/atoms for centuries. Mistakes happen.  It's how we learn.

It's not going to kill science to give up evolution for a better theory if damning evidence against it is discovered, and it won't kill religion if evolution is proven beyond a doubt.

Can we end this playground fight, please?


09.09.2011 at 09:20


"It's not going to kill science to give up evolution for a better theory if damning evidence against it is discovered"


That goes for everything.  If damning evidence against the Earth being a sphere is found...

But there has been no damning evidence discovered against evolution.  There has been no evidence of any kind discovered against evolution.  The perported evidence is basically a pack of lies, misunderstandings, and logical fallacies.   People think that politicans and used-car salemen are dishonest, but those guys have nothing on creationists.   Ever look up one of the quotes creationists use?  It is amazing just how dishonest some of those quotes can be. 

I dare say, that if the evidence we now have can't convince someone that evolution is reality than there is no possible evidence that will.  The DNA evidence alone proves evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.  And then there are the fossils,. biogeography. comparative anatomy, etc. 

Indeed if the young-earth creationism is true, then the vast majority  of science is flat-out wrong: Most everything in geology goes.  Most everything in astronomy goes.  Physics is full of it.  Chemistry will need to account that atomic physics that it uses is wrong.  Most of biology will obviously be wrong.  And indeed ancient history is wrong. 


09.09.2011 at 04:15 Reply
09.12.2011 at 10:57 Reply

This entire article is a joke. There is no evidential proof that evolution is indeed dead, nor is nothing presented in this article apart from straw man attacks and near ad hominem fallacious arguments.


"its unprovable faith assumptions of radio metric dating" as opposed to the faith assumptions of belief in a cosmic overlord that sent himself to earth, died, and then was reborn?


"its absurd notion that time and chance produced complexity of design," as opposed to the absurd notion that the great skydaddy created all of complexity in six days?


"the huge leap of faith that believes inanimate matter can produce intelligent information, and nonliving objects can transform into living." as opposed to the huge leap of faith that believes a man like Noah could build a boat to house two of each of the 8.7 million species on the planet (because evolution is dead, mind you) and support them for a long period of time during a flood that has no documentation outside of a crusty holy book?


Time and time again evidence has been brought forth that *could* invalidate evolution, but it hasn't. Instead, the only thing it has done is strengthen the claims. We know more about evolution that we do gravity. Evolution is a fact. If you don't like it, evolution doesn't care. It continues in spite of your ignorance.


09.12.2011 at 11:30 Reply

This is a true example of why your region of the US is refered to as fly over country, because you would have to have a very low IQ to vist a place still living by the teachings of the first century. Come into 2011 and begin to let your people receive an education.