The initial "Open Letter" (of Oct. 7th) is here.  A few weeks later one
of Discover's Senior Editors wrote back, twice.  -Those letters are not
on-line at this time. In the Third Letter (Dec. 19th) I asked if he has any
objections to his letters (or an alternate response) being made available.

A Second Letter to the Editors of Discover Magazine

December 4, 2003

114 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY. 10011

Dear Mr. ------,

Thank you for your letters of Nov. 7th & 10th.  I appreciated receiving your two responses to the contentions of my October 7th letter.

Lightening, the wind, stormy seas, human origins, the stars, and the miracle of birth – it is natural for men (and women) to search for answers to the unknown and to try to apply reason and order.  Religion and science then, both as extensions of our grasping for understanding in this world, can become intertwined.

Astrologers, for millennia, co-mingled their particular beliefs around good astronomy.  The astronomy part was science so the average person may not have always recognized the religious part that had been added.

Witchdoctors have plied their trades in varying capacities across multiple continents; one part herbal remedies, with two parts of appeasing spirits and so forth.  Witch.  Doctor.  Again, an example of scientific knowledge having religious beliefs deceptively co-mingled into the remedies where the average persons may not realize that this had been done.

In my letter of October 7th I stated that I strongly object to the modern co-mingling of evolutionary beliefs into standard science publications, such as your own: Discover.  There should be no place for such spiritual deceptions in the scientific realm within any modern science publication.

When I state before a group (either in a classroom or church) that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” I make the point that I am a creationist, i.e. that I am a scientifically thinking person.  I contend that “something from nothing for no reason” is inherently unscientific.  Why, that is magic, not science.  Don’t you agree?

When evolutionists tell impressionable schoolchildren that the universe started with a Big Bang explosion (or derivative hypothesis) you are telling them that the universe exploded (or appeared) all by itself into chance existence – unscientific!  Something from nothing for no reason is inherently unscientific.  Don’t you agree?

I would strongly encourage you to seriously consider the scientific alternative to God-ignoring evolution, and that is: “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” which leads to certain logical conclusions about the (externally produced) origins of our universe.  It’s unavoidable if a person thinks this through scientifically and logically.  It is better in the long-term to be right than temporarily popular with other hiding mortals.

The consensus of scientists in Galileo’s day stood against him, believing as they had for 1200 years (since Ptolemy, c. 200AD – Greek teaching) that the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth.  The consensus of scientists was wrong then too.  But the stakes in the origins debate today are much higher.  The past orients the future.

In my Oct. 7th letter (page 1) I made a point of discussing malnutrition as one source for malformed or under-developed skeletons.  I was surprised that you challenged me on this.

In America we have immigrants from every nation.  Pygmies, Aetas, Swedes, Chinese, Gypsies, Eskimos, and Germans.  We’re from all over the world coming in all sizes and colors.  Surely we would agree that modern human skeletons vary tremendously while still all Homo sapiens.  (With the exception of native Tasmanians, who are now extinct due to the pro-active efforts of zealous evolutionists of only 100 years ago – putting their beliefs into practice.)  Brain size in modern humans varies from 700-2200 cc – with no relation to intelligence.  …with NO relation to intelligence, among modern humans.  I used to live in Japan for five years, where people are generally shorter and smaller (with smaller heads) – but I’ll tell you – there are some very smart Japanese people in the world.

Homo erectus is an evolutionary construct.  You (evolutionists) don’t have a published definition, do you?  …Well, sir, do you?  That’s because it suits a purpose, not a scientific definition.  The purpose, a religious one, is to contend that humans evolved (i.e. no God or a weak god), no matter what the real evidence.  Some evolutionists have published general beliefs about H. erectus cranial capacity being about 750-1250 cc.  But since this size range fits entirely into that of Homo sapiens today (which includes Neanderthals, since they’ve been artificially re-classified to be within the modern strain) please drop the charade.

You are a senior editor of a major science publication.  As such, sir, have you been privy to the hiding of the ancient skeletons of giants that’s been going on?  Creationists know about it.

Typical artist illustrations of the theorized progression to modern man always show WASPs as the goal.  Hmmm, that’s not racist at all, is it?  Why don’t your experts ever end with one Chinese-featured final product?  There are over one billion of them now, more than the total count of Caucasoids, or at least comparable.

Yes, there is wide variation (including some fossil remains of giants in the past) – but no evidence (when all the evidence is considered – including the 99% commonly ignored) of the assumed evolutionary progression.  The variation we see was built-in, i.e. designed, not haphazard in structure nor random in appearance.  Heredity & variation (with built-in biological limits) are a delicate part of the initial design of life on Earth.

Nutrition affects each person on a daily basis.  Too much sugar and caffeine in the morning causes problems.  For bone development over time manganese and calcium (among other nutrients) are essential.  We have a good article on-line about trace nutrients, within:  if you’re interested.  There simply are folks out there on the street today (in your city) with skeletal deformities, with anemia, with problems thinking clearly due to malnutrition, and who thus negatively affect the persons around them and the development of society at large.  A pregnant woman could tell you that it is common for a woman to get more tooth decay when pregnant, i.e. when calcium is being rationed in her body.  And older persons in Asia (particularly, but not exclusively) are often visibly stooped over due to many years of insufficient calcium in their diets.

Early spring used to be the worst time of year, nutritionally.  For months everyone in the village would only have eaten (what’s left of) those foods that preserved well over the winter.  Forget vitamin C.  Low-grade scurvy was the order of the day.  With everyone affected, every year, who would have known different?  Using a completely different example (as in my Oct. 7th letter) if a valley’s soil was low in certain minerals then it would negatively affect every crop, animal and human eating the foods produced in that valley.  No iodine, or not enough sodium or iron - they’ll be malnutritioned.  The nervous, circulatory, and skeletal systems will be negatively impacted – perhaps for lifetimes.

Adult skulls elongate and build up thicker areas over decades also, as I’m sure you’re aware.  Let’s theorize that humans from long ago used to live much longer.  We have evidence (depending upon interpretation) that dinosaurs did, growing their entire lifetimes, some to over 100 feet (30 meters) long.  If turtles, beavers, donkeys, dinosaurs, sloths, and other creatures grew differently (at that time – which we don’t see today) then we could compare the fossil record with written historical records of our ancient history.  And we see in several literatures (from Mexico, Sumeria, the Bible, and other preserved documents) stories that humans were said to have lived hundreds of years.  Methuselah lived to 969.  How would that affect their bones, cartilage, and muscles?  Would the eventual shape of brows and lower jaws have been significantly impacted?

Several (former) Homo erectus fossils have graduated in the literature.  Others get periodically demoted, in order to keep the H. erectus construct alive.  Keep those grants coming!  Send those diplomas for graduating from H. erectus to (artificially promoted) H. sapiens to: Kow Swamp and Cohuna,1,2 Mossgiel,3 Talgia,4 and WHL-50 from Willandra Lakes.5

There are some very, very smart people who believe in and do research in evolutionary theories.  Unfortunately, this is not a question of the “weight of science” as pertains to intelligently completed detailed research, per se.

A genius - acting upon bad financial advice could (though a genius) still make a bad investment decision.  But on the same day, an average person, acting upon good financial data may conversely make an excellent investment decision.

Moving to romance – a brilliant person with inaccurate information on a potential partner could choose the wrong person to marry.  Perhaps the potential partner had neglected to mention the criminal record and his/her past seven marriages.  Oh.  Oops.  But conversely, an average person (not necessarily brilliant, but one acting upon quality information about the other person) may make a good decision on a person to marry, for example.

Okay, now let’s move up to the spiritual.  The genius may have been misinformed (using bad data) or openly deceived.  Whereas many average people might indeed have it right.  In other words, I do not take issue with the “weight” of all the smart people strongly believing that evolution must have taken place.  They’re following consensus (like Galileo’s critics), not the real scientific evidence.  In this way, though some may be geniuses, they’re making bad decisions due to bad data and its momentum.  To compound the error, it is then the perceived “consensus of the scientists” that is given as a common reason for insisting that the rest of us accept evolutionary beliefs.

Your Nov. 7th letter states:  (in last para.) “…Do you truly believe you understand the mind of God so completely that you can say exactly when and how he created the world?  That strikes me a hubris, plain and simple, not devotion and certainly not science. …”

Well there is really only one creation story still standing.  The one revealed to us by the One who did it.  Am I the one with hubris if I start there?  Or is one who wholly discounts it the one with hubris?  Sir, so many dating methods show the Earth to be young.  One example is the Mississippi River.  Each day, month, year it transports sediment from upstream to downstream.  In our seminars (and videos, etc.) we claim that (this among many evidences) the total deposition in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico and the measured rate of today’s erosion/deposition – shows that the mighty Mississippi has only been running for thousands of years.  The Earth is young.  (More on this below the several quotes.)

Human mental input is limited to five senses, and the data that we can scientifically interpret to connect to one of our five senses.  The “wonder of religious faith” (more of your words) is not something to be compartmentalized – holding our Maker at a distance.  Does the rest of the universe really revolve around human understanding?  Pre-Galileo thinking, again.  Don’t (stated with respect, but with genuine fear for your soul) … don’t be a fool, sir!  Humans know better than God how we came to be here?  Evolutionists are filled with such hubris.

Ancient history – is by its very nature not testable-repeatable.  (Just as I wrote in my Oct. 7th letter.)  A one-time event cannot, by its nature, be shown to be scientific, per se.  And the scientific evidence just does not support slow improvements over time due to random chance and chaos theory.  Macroevolution, as believed today, is inherently unscientific, based on the evidence.  And science is simply the wrong tool – as I said in my first letter.

“…we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded.…  Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.  By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”  Dr. David Raup, Senior Curator/Geologist at the Field Museum, 1979

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens.  The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare, inside a single coffin.”  Lyell Watson, in Science Digest, May 1982, pg. 44

I know that evolutionists really dislike it when creationists quote their doubts and admissions, but let me put two more here.  Sir, the evidence for evolution just is not there.  It never happened.  So consider the logical alternative.

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table.”  John Reader, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist (26 March 1981): 802.

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."   Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

For about 40 years the world was told that Piltdown Man was solid evidence for human evolution.  About 500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown, until it was finally revealed as a clever hoax in 1953.  500!  We’re talking institutional-faculty-replacing levels!  Many brilliant scientific men (and a few women) have given their lives in the pursuit of evolutionary understanding.  They were fooled by bad data.  This is only one example, but it’s one that we can both agree on.  If I mentioned that Lucy is also bad evidence – you would cry, “foul” as many evolutionary researchers don’t have a high profile fossil replacement yet.  Lucy, Zinjanthropus, Nebraska Man, Java Man, and so many others – are subject to re-classifications.  The appearance of respectability is vitally important.  The interpretation and public presentation of the available data shows an apparent progression, even when most of the data is ignored or (like the giants) effectively hidden from view.  The evolutionary belief system is the one to be co-mingled into modern science.

You know … sir, you must know – that the evolutionary dating methods do not work.  The public is routinely excluded from this knowledge – but you, sir, know this.

Why did you contend that I gave no evidence for showing that your radiometric dating methods don’t work?  I’ll repeat (from my first letter, pages 2 & 3) – some of the evidence showing that K-Ar doesn’t work which may be found at:

Mount St. Helens
…and many other places in the world with historical lava flows.

You know that what a priest can do is to contend that something is true by faith.  But a scientist works differently.  It’s called: confirming it with testable-repeatable data.

We could easily obtain two quality samples each from five locations of existing volcanic material from: the Grand Canyon (an igneous portion), Pompeii, Hawaii, the Rift Valley, and Mount St. Helens.  Each is labeled with a letter A-J and then sent to another person who is not privy to the lettering.  He or she sends the ten unadulterated samples in to modern labs for K-Ar (or U-Pb, if you prefer) dating, using the latest equipment.  The results will tell us the truth when they come back.  Four of the ten samples should show “valid” millions of years dating; but the six samples (per above) from historical lava flows should not show millions of years.

Pompeii – buried August 24, 79 AD – should have no measurable radioisotopic date.
Mount St. Helens – new lava dome of 1980-82 – should have no measurable date.
Hawaii – use any recent, recorded volcanic flow – should have no measurable date.

In other words, six of the ten samples should show near zero results.  But they won’t.  This is testable-repeatable science – as I wrote in my October 7th letter.  And that, sir, is evidence.

We can show – using testable-repeatable science – that the radioactive dating methods are completely unreliable.  The Earth is young.  In my first letter (Oct. 7th) I also mentioned the paleontological site that I was at in Montana for two weeks of last summer.  Buried wood and coal fragments were in the same layer with dinosaur bones.  Let’s also then use C14 to date some of the wood and coal fragments.  This will show:

A)  Dragon bones (a.k.a. dinosaurs) are really only thousands of years old.
B)  C14 doesn't work either (not beyond a couple thousand years).
C)  Evolution is a hiding place, inherently claiming that God must be weak.
D)  All of the above.

The correct answer is D) – All of the above.

Well, this response has already become way too long.  But I just looked over your letters again.  …Oort’s Cloud and comets.  (I brought it up on the second page of my Oct. 7th letter.  You then mentioned this in your Nov. 7th letter.)  -- “Young Earth” Creationists believe that there is evidence that our universe is actually young.  All comets deteriorate quickly, which would coincide with this contention.  By my stating that there is no evidence for the theoretical Oort’s Cloud (to produce periodic new comets to fling in towards the Sun) I am challenging the belief in a universe that’s billions of years old.  I think the comets today (there were many more recorded back in Roman times) are remnants of a past astral catastrophe.  One that happened only thousands of years ago.  But that’s a whole different and complicated subject.

Mr. -----, when you’ve got 10 minutes sometime – go to NASA’s web site and pull up detailed images of the planet Mars.  Look.  Count craters per quadrant.  Just look at the mute data there.  What a few of us see (those “crazy” creationists) is that about 90% of the craters are on one side (more southern, to one hemisphere) – but not the other.  Hmmm.  What does one do with that?  And that big “rip” in the surface – why, if on Earth it would reach from Seattle to Pensacola!  What happened?

If some 90% of the craters are on one side, but not the other – one could theorize that the craters are definitely not the result of random asteroids hitting the surface once every million years or so.  (Shades of Velikovsky here – but just perhaps …)  Perhaps these craters are the signatures of a one-time past catastrophe that happened in less than one Mars day (it’s about 24 hours, 15 min.).  In fact, perhaps the bulk of the bombardment actually took place in less than an hour!  A catastrophe.  Compare the geological features on the opposite side of the planet, which (theoretically) could then be the result of the devastating impacts.  Not too much research has gone into this – but I do have one book on-line that lines up the evidence pretty well, it’s at: .  It’s called “The Mars-Earth Wars” by D. W. Patten.

I love science.  My background is in history, by the way.  But I am not a scientist.  Here in Berkeley there are sometimes folks who think that I should be quiet.  I then reply … by asking if I had received my degree in theology instead of history, would I be more or less qualified to discuss scientific topics?  The (sometimes very emotional) challenger(s) then (typically) replies, “less.”  I can then remind them that Charles Darwin’s only degree was in theology; so if they want to ignore anything that Darwin had to say about science – who am I to argue with them?

Sir, with all due respect, your magazine periodically co-mingles evolutionary (religious) beliefs into its science pages; I respectfully ask you once more to stop.  Question the foregone conclusion that evolution has just got to be true.  Our origins (as perceived and then acted upon) directly affect our individual and societal destinies.  There have been other modern societies that have taken on evolutionary beliefs and then acted on them corporately.  Millions were murdered.  The thought of that being done to America is chilling.  Please cease and desist from participating in the spiritual deception that is evolution.  Science does not support it.


Paul Abramson
P.O. Box (moved)
Berkeley, CA. 94---(moved)

Editor of:


1 – Alan G. Thorne and P. G. Macumber, “Discoveries of Late Pleistocene Man at Kow Swamp, Australia,” Nature 238 (11 August 1972): 316-319.
2. – A. G. Thorne and Milford H. Wolpoff, “Regional Continuity in Australasian Pleistocene Hominid Evolution” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55:3 (July 1981): 337-49.
3 – Kenneth P. Oakley, Bernard Campbell, and Theya Molleson, eds., Catalogue of Fossil Hominids, part III (London: Trustees of the British Museum – Natural History, 1975), 200.
4 – “Talgai Skull,” Science News 93 (20 April 1968): 381.
5 – Ian Tattersall, Eric Delson, and John Van Couvering, eds., Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory (New York: Garland Publishing, 1988), 67.

On-line at:
Go to: Third Letter