Daniel Phelps is the President of the Kentucky Paleontological Society (KPS) and an arch-opponent of the Creation Museum and the AiG ministry. With the position that he holds at the KPS, you would hope that such a person would not stoop to name-calling in his opposition to those who believe in the biblical creation message. However, that seems to be the trend these days in evolutionist circles, and Phelps has resorted to just that.
The profile for Daniel Phelps on Amazon.com reads:
I’m now an environmental geologist after a number of years as a petroleum geologist. In addition to my main job, I teach physical geology and a class on dinosaurs and the history of life/historical geology at Bluegrass Community and Technical College (formerly Lexington Community College). I also serve as President of the Kentucky Paleontological Society.
Since he is a Kentucky geologist and lives about 90 minutes south of our northern-Kentucky based museum, he has been cited in news sources in regards to the Creation Museum, such as this recent quote:
“We’re depressed, I think,” said Dan Phelps, head of the Kentucky Paleontology Society, who toured the museum shortly after its opening.
“There’s been such a push in recent years to improve science education, but stuff like this still hangs around.” Mr. Phelps said he fears some teachers, shying away from the origins controversy, may choose to omit mentioning evolution studies in the classroom.
Recently, one of AiG’s supporters asked us if we would debate Daniel Phelps. AiG’s Chief Communications Officer Mark Looy replied on Monday, October 13:
Thanks, Jim. Yes, we would debate Mr. Phelps, as long as we stick to science and the philosophy of science—but we would have him debate Dr. Andrew Snelling (our PhD geologist) instead.
The AiG supporter on October 14 sent this email to Daniel Phelps:
Mr. Phelps, This is the response I received from Mr. Ham’s representative. Would you agree to a debate with them? Jim.
Later that same day, Phelps replied:
No, it would make it appear as if there were a valid debate. AIG employee’s [sic] are welcome to write scientific papers and submit them to journals where real science is actually “debated.” They would rather have a debate in a church with a sacrificial “evolutionist” before an audience of non-scientists.
Our AiG supporter responded the next day with a longer email—but with this challenge in the last paragraph:
. . . I ask you to please agree to a debate in a neutral location, or even in a public university location, should that be acceptable to the Museum’s representatives, for the purpose of letting the audience make up their own minds.
Phelps then responded on the same day:
Why would any scientist waste their time debating morons?
Hmmm. Very academic word–morons. As Mark told me:
Name-calling is one of the last resorts for those with a retreating, indefensible position–who are fearful of having their long-cherished beliefs being scrutinized in public. He can take pot shots at us in the media from the safety of his office or home, but when asked to engage in a public forum, he retreats when challenged.
It begs the question: what is he really afraid of? He doesn’t want to stand up in defense of his firmly held views in public.
So, AiG publicly challenges Daniel Phelps—a professional in geology—to debate AiG’s Andrew Snelling, also a geologist.
You may want to read an article on AiG’s website critiquing the very inaccurate article about the Creation Museum written by Phelps for the NCSE some time ago. As we state in that article:
A few weeks ago, another NCSE-affiliated visitor dropped by AiG and the museum. Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, toured the Creation Museum and wrote a review of his museum experience for Dr. Scott’s NCSE website. The inaccuracies and lack of careful research (his obvious anti-creationist agenda aside) betray Dr. Scott’s claim that she insists on maintaining high academic standards at the NCSE. We were also surprised that some profanity was permitted to remain in the anti-museum article, and we note, too, that the column is peppered with nonacademic language (e.g., the museum’s content is described with words like “insane,” “quack,” and “bunk”).”
You can read the entire article and learn more of Phelps’ gross inaccuracies.
We often receive communications from people asking why AiG’s scientists aren’t seen debating evolutionist scientists. More and more we’ve found evolutionists don’t want to debate—they argue for instance that debating a creationist gives publicity to the creationists, and as Phelps says above, they don’t believe the topic is worthy of debate, as they’ve already concluded evolution is fact. So, they don’t want to “legitimize” the creationist position by debating. And of course, if known creationists submit papers to evolutionist journals (as Phelps suggests), it is well known that papers supporting creation in any way will be rejected—as they’ve already determined it is not a legitimate position (as Phelps makes clear in his response above when he says “it would make it appear as if there were a valid debate”).
What will happen to me
(2 Kings 8:7–8) And Elisha came to Damascus; and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?
From bodily disease for short life on earth, the lost are anxious to know what will happen, but from sin for eternity, they are indifferent to know their outcome.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,