News Releases

Veteran of Evolution vs. Creationism Battle to Speak at Ithaca College

 ITHACA, NY — The executive director of the National Center for Science Education, who has been involved in the creationism/evolution controversy for over 25 years as both a researcher and an activist, will give a free public talk at Ithaca College on Wednesday, March 28.

Eugenie Scott will present “In the Beginning: Science and Religion” at 7 p.m. in Textor 102. Her talk is part of the college’s C. P. Snow Lecture Series.

An anthropologist, Scott is a leading critic of efforts to teach creationism and intelligent design in the public schools. She was named executive director of the National Center for Science Education in 1987, the same year that the Supreme Court ruled such teaching to be an unconstitutional advancement of religion. She is the author of the book “Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction” and coeditor of “Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools.”

“The subject of origins — of where we, Earth, and the universe come from — is one that has been considered by many religions since time immemorial,” said Scott. “Science, as a relatively recent actor on the intellectual stage, also considers these topics, coming up with answers at variance with those of most religions, including Christianity. How do these two approaches differ? Are there similarities? And is there an uncrossable divide between the two? The answer is not just philosophically interesting, but directly relevant to decisions being made about what to teach in public school science courses.”

A past president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Scott was elected as a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and serves on the National Advisory Councils of both Americans for Religious Liberty and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Her honors include the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences, the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award and the Stephen Jay Gould Prize from the Society for the Study of Evolution.

The C. P. Snow Lecture Series began in the School of Humanities and Sciences more than 40 years ago as a means of bridging the gap between the sciences and the humanities. It was named for the British physicist and novelist Sir Charles Percy Snow, a man who truly embodied the mission of the series for his work as an internationally renowned scientist, author and lecturer. Speakers over the years have included “Twilight Zone” creator Rod Serling, Mercury astronaut Scott Carpenter, “Future Shock” author Alvin Toffler and physician Patch Adams.

For more information on the series, visit or contact Janet Hunting, assistant professor of chemistry and cochair of the C. P. Snow Committee, at (607) 274-1475 or


Censorship is essential to the future of evolutionism and Darwin is the only foundation suited to rapidly establishing a New World Order.
The USA was founded on the self-evident truths of unalienable rights from Creator God. This spawns the ideas of liberty and responsibility, wholly incompatible with NWO plans for a three-tiered plantation with "more highly evolved rulers" on top, their well paid guards keeping order and the workers strapped to their machines until they drop.
All inconvenient truths begin with inconvenient questions. Those with anti-Darwinist tendencies must be identified early and rooted out as religious fanatics and potential terrorists.

Dr. Eugenie Scott is a coward. She has been avoiding my challenges to meet in a public forum for over eight years.

I am the world's leading expert on the book of Genesis. There is no “close second”. I have asked Dr. Scott time, and time again, to present what she and/or her organization feels is valid evidence for the (false) scientific conclusion of the evolution theory.

If there is so much (mountains of?) evidence for evolution, why are the “champions of evolution”, such as Dr. Michael Zimmerman (Clergy Letter Project) and Dr. Scott so deceitful and afraid to respond? Yes, I’ve called them out to meet me on Main Street and Broad, at High Noon, but they stay hidden in the alley ways. I’ve also challenged other creationists (young Earth and old Earth) that don’t know the scriptures, to meet me on Mt. Carmel, in front of all the people, to see who has the truth of Genesis, but they also run and hide.

So, again I offer this challenge to Dr. Eugenie Scott. If you think that evolution is the truth of Earth’s prehistoric past, present your evidence in front of the people, and compare it with the correct literal reading of Genesis chapter one.

I would hope that those that attend her lecture would ask her why she is avoiding me!!!

Herman Cummings

Mr Cummings

Perhaps it is because you are slightly potty and to even debate with you gives an appearance of some validity to your point of view when no such validity or credibility is warranted.


Your position (creationist?) does not deserve anymore attention then it already has seen over the years. Creationism is absolute non-sense and I have yet to see anything brought forward supporting such wishful thinking. Get with the times - this non-sense has gone on far too long and people like you do nothing but attempt to bastardize real science. Arguments for such a position are recycled psycho babble and no scientist/expert in the field needs to waste there time with them anymore.

Come, let us reason together:

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

Given the vastness of the universe, eons of time, and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

The greatest misconception that Satan has ever put in the minds of the human race is a disbelief in his existence. The second greatest misconception that Satan has put in the minds of the human race is the belief that ‘If evolution is true, then Genesis would have to be false- and therefore the Bible not true.’
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six�day account: ...
The order of their listing in the six�day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence: ...
The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence.

What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls� what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. ...
...The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, ...
If Adam was the first primate to genetically evolve in intelligence sufficiently to have a free will- only at which point he could be held responsible for his actions, then it would be critically essential for his mate to have an identical set of chromosomes. Yet Adam was unique, being the first to reach this level.
How did God solve this problem?

And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21�23)

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring.

This is an appealing view of a process with an inherent tendency to drift toward an organic goal but it doesn't explain how a random system can suddenly turn into one capable of replicating itself. It is not clear that an evolutionary process without replication must inevitably, or can indeed ever, lead to one that does include it. ...The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.

And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)