Date:
Monday, July 6, 2009
Correspondence history between Pastor Kevin Lea and
Dr. Henry Morris III (CEO of ICR) pertaining to Pastor Kevin’s
July 6, 2009 letter documenting Dr. Steven A. Austin’s plagiarism
and poor science being featured in AiG’s museum
From: kevinlXXXXXXXXX
To: xxxxxx@xxxx
CC: waltxxxxxx; kevinlXXXXXXXX
Subject: Letter from Pastor Kevin Lea - Plagiarism in AiG Museum
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:01:45 -0700
6 July 2009
Dear Henry Morris III,
I have attached a preliminary letter that I believe requires your very careful attention and
response.
It documents Dr. Austin's plagiarism of Dr. Brown's work on the Grand Canyon and,
more importantly, how his actions have had such a detrimental effect on the creation
science movement.
I encourage you to read the attached letter to determine [if] ICR stands behind Dr. Austin.
This letter shows, using Austin's own words, the serious errors and deceptions that he
authored while at ICR. I want to give ICR every opportunity to correct me if I have
misunderstood the matter in any way.
If you or Austin can provide documentation showing where I have erred, I will make the
necessary corrections to the attached letter before posting. If you cannot (and others who
are also being solicited for rebuttal and comment cannot), then the attached letter with its
Attachments will be posted at our website as written. It will also be distributed to about
200 creationist organizations with a website presence.
You may note that some of the links are not yet active, but they will be by the time of
actual posting in early August.
You may not realize that on 5-6-2008 Dr. Brown sent Dr. Austin a copy of Endnote 34 in
Brown's Grand Canyon chapter. (Dr. Brown's Endnote 34) This was a month before it
was placed in his 8th Edition. Brown offered to correct any errors Austin could identify
― or remove the entire endnote if Austin publicly corrected the record. Austin ignored
his offer. Unfortunately, 30,000 copies of that are now in print, not to mention on the
Internet. Many people are reading it. ICR is mentioned many times.
I will be leaving for Africa tomorrow and will not return until July 25. Feel free to
respond now if you wish. Some of my assistants are very familiar with the material and
1
may be able to assist you and the others that are receiving this preliminary letter.
However, some matters may have to wait till I return.
Sincerely,
Pastor Kevin Lea
Dr. Henry Morris III’s Response
With Pastor Kevin comments interspersed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Morris III" <XXXXXXXX
To: "Kevin Lea" XXXXXXXXXX
Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: Letter from Pastor Kevin Lea - Plagiarism in AiG Museum
Dear Pastor Lea
I am not at all sure what you expect me or ICR to do.
KL – I will answer this at the end of my response. It is quite simple and will not
harm ICR. In fact, it should strengthen ICR.
Steve Austin, as you certainly know, is no longer an employee of ICR. He has chosen to
be an independent contractor and consultant.
KL – The fact that Austin no longer works at ICR has nothing to do with ICR’s
complicity in Austin’s plagiarism and bad science in the AiG museum. As Chief
Executive Officer of ICR you could and should take corrective actions
independent of what Austin does.
The issues that you document have taken place over nearly 30 years.
KL – Austin plagiarized Dr. Brown’s work in 1989 (20 years ago, not 30). In
1994 (15 years ago), Brown could no longer ignore Austin’s actions because
Austin was accusing Brown of plagiarizing him. (Leading up to mediation,
Austin denied this, despite the witnesses Brown provided. However, Austin
brought this charge against Brown to the lead mediator after the actual mediation
but before the lead mediator made his final determination. I have written
testimony that Austin is again making this ridiculous charge as recently as the
2008 ICC conference.)
Mediation determined that Austin was to place an errata sheet in his book and
that he should stop using the name Canyonlands Lake and go back to the name
Brown gave it when he discovered it (i.e., Grand Lake, the name Austin used for
three years). Your father and Austin refused to fully comply with this
2
determination and Austin published his November 1994 book with false
statements and an incorrect name for the lake in order to cover his plagiarism.
ICR is complicit in selling (to this day) Austin’s book that is tainted with
plagiarism and lacks scientific evidence to support Austin’s breached dam
statements for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Austin didn’t come up with a
scientifically viable theory for the origin of the Grand Canyon; he plagiarized
some of Brown’s work but couldn’t steal the science behind it.
On May 28, 2007 (26 months ago), AiG (with ICR, and Austin’s help) opened
their museum in Kentucky with plagiarism and bad science in their Grand
Canyon display and material.
March 2008 (16 months ago) – I brought documentation (quietly) to AiG, ICR,
Austin and others asking that they refute my concerns or correct the plagiarism
and bad science in the museum. No one has disputed the facts. I did catch one
minor error in my letter (which occurred because I hadn’t read all of the
historical record). Now that I have read more, the actions by ICR and Austin are
worse than I thought (and are now more fully documented).
March 2008-August 2009 (present) – AiG, ICR, and Austin’s refusals to do what
is right are causing hundreds-of-thousands of AiG museum visitors to be deceived
by poor science and plagiarism in the Grand Canyon displays.
I ask myself, “How this can be? They don’t dispute the facts, but they refuse to do
what is right. Is it because they fear that if they publically admit and correct past
wrong deeds that donations will be withheld? Is it because ICR and AiG have
lied about Dr. Brown and his work for so many years that it is too painful for
them to mention his name in a favorable way?”
“Could it be that because they have such a large bullhorn in their Acts and Facts
newsletter (July 2008 issue) they think they can discredit my concerns by allowing
Austin to print many false statements in ‘Red Rock Pass: Spillway of the
Bonneville Flood?” This ethical lapse on Austin/ICR’s part was three months
after my second letter went to 200 creation organizations one year ago. ICR
knew, or should have known, that Austin’s article was full of false statements.
Many are now documented and posted for all to see how ICR misled them. I was
compelled to post the truth because ICR refused to carefully research and then
retract this article even after I warned in a certified letter that if ICR didn’t
retract, I would document that ICR was complicit in Austin’s false statements.
My appeal for ICR to correct their errors, and ICR’s refusal to do so, is now
posted as part of the historical record.
“Is it because they don’t believe me when I tell them that if they don’t either allay
my concerns or correct the problem immediately, then I will be posting?” As you
can see, the historical record is now posted at our website and I will be
publishing all of this in a book. My sole motive is so that people who want to
3
know the truth can find it. They should find it in the museum, but as things are
now, it is not available.
With each passing day (present – not 30 years ago), more people are deceived
because AiG, ICR, and Austin cannot bring themselves to do what is right. To the
extent the Internet can prevent this, I rejoice, and so will the thousands of people
who would have been misled by Austin, ICR, and AiG had I not posted the truth.
Those who hear the truth will be able to be directed to the one who did discover
how the Grand Canyon was formed and read his 38-page, scientifically sound
explanation.
Legal agreements have been executed by Dr. Brown and Dr. Austin.
KL – And soon afterward broken by Austin with a nod from your father.
Your involvement is, at best, a rehearsing of what is known by all involved.
KL – Only Austin, your father, Brown, and the mediation panel knew what
happened over the course of the year that Dr. Brown tried to convince ICR/Austin
to do what was right. Only Brown, Austin, and Morris knew that Austin/ICR
violated the agreement. Brown chose to remain quiet even though Austin
breached the mediation agreement within two months. For reasons I describe in
my letter, I strongly urged Dr. Brown to send me the correspondence history
surrounding the issue. Very shortly afterward, someone who had visited the AiG
museum called me to voice his concerns about the Grand Canyon display. (He
was familiar with Brown’s work and felt Austin/AIG were plagiarizing but did not
know the history.) He also sent me a copy of the AiG marketed DVD containing
the false story of the Grand Canyon discovery and the bad science of a 30 mile
wide, 2,000 foot high, limestone dam inexplicably breaching.
People do not know why one extinct lake (Grand Lake) has two names. The name
they will see in the AiG museum is incorrectly called Canyonlands Lake (to help
hide Austin’s plagiarism). If they read the 8th edition of Dr. Brown’s book, or
visit his website, they will see this same extinct lake is properly called Grand
Lake. When AiG, ICR, and Austin say otherwise, people will want to know who is
telling the truth and where they can learn the full, scientific explanation. My
posting will help them in their quest for answers.
Dr. Morris, I hope you agree that this is needless confusion, which could have
been avoided 20 years ago by your father and Austin complying with the
mediation agreement. Confusion could have also been avoided in the museum if
ICR had informed AiG of the problems associated with using the name
Canyonlands Lake, since Austin invented this name to cover his plagiarism. It
could have also been avoided if AiG and ICR had acted on my March 2008 letter
(explaining what “is known by all involved”) by fixing the problem.
The issue is between Dr. Austin and Dr. Brown.
4
KL – I hope the above makes it clear that it is not just between Austin and Brown.
I assure you that those who read my posted 31-page letter will also see that it is
not.
Both have been guilty of a stubborn desire to have their name associated with some
"discovery" and both have not been willing to recognize each other's part in the
Kingdom. That is disappointing to me.
KL – You have badly misjudged motives, Pastor Morris. The record shows that
Brown has had no desire (stubborn or otherwise) to have his name associated
with some discovery. He ignored Austin’s plagiarisms for four years. Brown
even ignored Austin’s public accusations that he (Brown) plagiarized from
Austin, but finally confronted Austin when those accusations threatened serious
harm to others. You haven’t read the documentation I sent you.
Even after Austin/ICR broke the mediation agreement, Brown ignored the
controversy until Mrs. Julia Mulfinger Orozco pressed Brown to explain why
Brown’s Grand Lake name and his Grand Canyon discovery explanation differed
from Austin’s – information she gained while visiting ICR to interview your
father. [MAJOR LEAK #1] Mrs. Orozco was completing a book which included
one-chapter biographies of both your father and Dr. Brown. (Even after this
major leak, Brown sent Austin an email in Mrs. Orozco’s presence informing
Austin of the documents he showed her, which clearly explained Austin’s
published duplicity. I wish that those at ICR had studied the documents closely
enough to see that duplicity as well. Brown then told both Orozco and Austin how
to contact each other and encouraged Austin to tell Mrs. Orozco anything he
wanted.) With that leak, “the cat was out of the bag.” Two other major leaks
that occurred, both out of ICR, greatly intensified my interest and involvement. I
will skip those details for now.
Brown continued to remain quiet until just before publishing his 8th edition, which
now included a 38-page chapter on “The Origin of the Grand Canyon.” With the
publication of that chapter, thousands would have been asking the same question
as Mrs. Orozco (why two names for a lake and why two stories of how it was
discovered). Brown needed to add endnote 34 to the Grand Canyon chapter so
people could know the history of why he used the name Grand Lake and how
Austin had plagiarized this name and then changed it to Canyonlands Lake.
Brown sent the preliminary endnote to Austin for comment before it was
published in the 30,000 copies of the book. Although Brown offered to correct or
withhold endnote 34 if Austin could demonstrate errors or if he corrected matters,
Austin did not respond. Austin has also not responded to my letters; his silence
screams.
With endnote 34 now published in his book and at his website, Brown is through
wasting his time with this unpleasant controversy. His endnote encourages
people to reach their own conclusions, and offers to all who ask a CD-Rom
5
containing all relevant correspondence between him, Austin, and your father.
(By the way, your father comes off poorly in his efforts to cover-up this and other
plagiarisms within ICR.)
Although Brown is done devoting time to this issue, I am not. I know how difficult
it is for a reader of the correspondence to unravel the deceptions of Austin. I am
led to help the reader navigate through Austin’s many bob-and-weave deceptions
so they can understand the truth of the matter while reading the pile of
documents. Also, what Brown sends out does not include the false statements that
Austin published in ICR’s July 2008 edition of “Acts and Facts,” nor does it
include the historical record of how AiG and ICR have been given every chance
to correct this ethical and scientific injustice but they refuse to do so. I will not be
done until this posted documentation reaches a wide enough audience that the
truth takes victory over falsehoods and bad science.
Those who do carefully read this posted correspondence are shocked at Austin’s
and your father’s behavior. This public exposure is something Brown said (in
1993 and 94) that he would do if Austin and your father did not submit the entire
matter to Christian arbitration. After finally agreeing in writing to do so, they
backed out and agreed only to mediation. Even then, Austin quickly violated their
mediation agreement. In summary, Brown only desires the ability to tell the truth
about what he discovered and how it relates to the hydroplate theory, so he added
endnote 34 as his public disclosure. Brown’s credibility would have been
adversely affected by Austin’s false stories (repeated by others close to ICR)
about Brown stealing his ideas. Surely, you can see how Brown needed to
respond, especially when those stories began to hurt others. He is not trying to
make a name for himself. I don’t think Brown’s endnote does enough to further
the cause of creation science, so I have joined the battle for clarity and truth on
this matter by doing my own posting.
However, the record also shows that Austin has spared no expense in his stubborn
and unethical desire to have his name associated with a discovery he did not
make. By the position you, Dr. John Morris, and ICR are now taking, you are
tying yourselves to this unethical behavior.
The fact that two stalwart Creation Science organizations (ICR and AiG) have
ignored and covered up these lies is disappointing to me, and I think to Jesus
also.
However, neither of these men (since the legal agreements were reached) has tried to stir
up enmity or animosity among the Christians on the periphery. You, however, have.
KL – I believe that all people should know the true history of how Grand Lake
was discovered and named and how the Grand Canyon formed within weeks,
several centuries after the flood. With that understanding, people will know that
Dr. Brown (not Austin) has a detailed and scientifically sound explanation. The
longer ICR and AiG hinder the release of this information, the more problems it
6
will cause them in the long run. The clock is ticking, Dr. Morris. If you don’t
believe me, google on {origin “Grand Canyon”}. There are two major ways all
this information will be widely disseminated. The longer you wait, the bigger this
story will become.
Since ICR and AiG are putting out a false story about these things to thousands of
people every day, I will put the truth out in as visible a way as possible (now
posted for all to read – and soon in book form).
Dr. Morris, how is it that you think the truth is somehow divisive? I thought
division comes from Satan who uses lies to spread enmity and animosity among
Christians. The responsibility for any division that my posting may cause rests
squarely in the laps of those who are spreading falsehoods (Austin, ICR, and
AiG). That division will continue until those who spread falsehoods repent and
work together with those who love the truth to repair the damage that the
falsehoods have already caused.
You are dangerously close to incurring God's anger on you for "sowing discord among
brethren" (Proverbs 6:19). I am certain that you know that this is one of the most hated
"things" that a believer may do among the family of God.
KL – I am very aware of this warning and sincerely don’t believe that it applies to
my efforts to expose a lie and to tell the truth.
But I would be very concerned that this warning would apply to me if I was part
of an organization (especially if I were the head of an organization) that foisted
confusion by covering up a lie and shooting the messenger who was trying to
warn me to stop it before more people get hurt.
I would encourage you to refrain from such "sowing" and leave the issue to be settled
between the two men who are in disagreement.
KL – Forgive me for not being able to understand how you (CEO of ICR) cannot
see how big a deal this is. It is affecting tens-of-thousands every week that you
delay the inevitable. This issue is not settled because you, Austin, and AiG refuse
to acknowledge and embrace the truth and allow people to learn scientifically
sound information.
Frankly, Dr. Morris, I don’t believe you know what has gone on inside your
organization. You accuse me of sowing seeds of discord. Are you sure you are
not the pot calling the kettle black? Since 1984, a few people within ICR have
viewed Dr. Brown as a competitor who had to be marginalized. I could go into
great detail on this, but for now will only attach two emails (following my
response to you) that Dr. Brown received from two of your former employees:
Dr. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Mr. Xxxx Xxxxxx. Each offered an apology for the false
stories they had spread for more than 10 years (sowing seeds of discord by
bearing false witness). (The details of their backbitings are far more onerous
7
than their emails acknowledge.) That is just the tip of the iceberg that you, Dr.
Morris, are sitting on. There are other examples documented at our website. A
third attached email is from a police officer, Grant T. Johnson, who, like myself,
investigated ICR’s actions of spreading discord and asked Dr. Brown, and
especially ICR, pointed questions. He too got a run around from ICR.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Austin are fully capable of defending themselves among their peers.
Neither of them needs an "advocate."
KL – I am not Dr. Brown’s advocate. I am not defending Dr. Brown. I am an
advocate of truth. I am exposing the lies of Austin, ICR, and AiG so that others
are not deceived into believing the falsehoods your inaction protects.
The best that you can hope to accomplish is to sap time and money and energy and hope
and encouragement away from those who are engaged in the demanding warfare of the
creation versus evolution debate.
KL - I hope every soul becomes aware that AiG’s breached dam explanation for
the Grand Canyon is scientifically untenable, is based on Austin’s plagiarism,
and that ICR and AiG are complicit in the bad science and plagiarism. This will
prevent Christian students from foolishly using it in the classroom. I also hope
every soul will learn that the true discoverer has a sound scientific explanation.
Then they (those engaged in the demanding warfare of the creation versus
evolution debate) will be full of excitement as they enter their classrooms and talk
with their friends using sound science.
Those who prop up plagiarism and bad science are not engaged in the demanding
warfare of the creation versus evolution debate. Instead, they have been deceived
into spending their time, energy, hope, and God’s money in building a ministry
empire, rather than truly helping those who are doing the warfare in the trenches
of American classrooms.
You have laid a foundation of "wood, hay, and stubble" that will not provide strength. It
can only weaken and ultimately cause the fall of a ministry. If that is your desire, then I
would pray that God would have mercy on you.
KL - If AiG and ICR are built on the foundation of the truth, then nothing I or
anyone else did would affect the building. If this posting causes hardship for ICR
and AiG, it will be because they (not I) refused to do what is right about this
matter.
I beg you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to decease [cease] and desist from this
tragic effort to undermine the ministries in the creationist work.
KL – If I did, what would you propose we do to prevent others from being
deceived with bad science and plagiarism in the AiG museum? And what would
8
you propose we do about all the hundreds-of-thousands who have already been
misled?
I beg you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to call Dr. Austin and ask that he
refute with documented facts the charges of my letter or to give up his deception.
Then, if he cannot refute, call Ken Ham (with or without Austin’s help) and tell
him that you have carefully reviewed my letter and talked to Austin, and that
Austin cannot refute my charges. If you take this step, I will pull down this
response letter to you (which is now posted on the internet) and replace it with
your letter of planned corrective actions that you have worked out with Ken Ham.
The documented history will continue to be posted as long as the confusion about
this issue requires that I provide a place for people to determine the facts of the
matter. Soon it will be in book form.
Continuing to cover up a deception started by Austin (with your father’s help) will
only make things worse, no matter how painful it is to do the right thing.
In His Name,
Henry Morris
Chief Executive Officer
Institute for Creation Research
In service to Jesus,
Kevin Lea
Pastor, Calvary Church of Port Orchard
Apology from Dr. Xxxxxxx
to Walt Brown
For a Decade of False, Public Criticisms of Brown
[It should be noted that I (Kevin Lea) called Dr. Xxxxxxx after he sent this
letter to Dr. Brown and in our discussion realized that he knew nothing
about Dr. Brown’s Hydroplate Theory. Therefore, this letter of apology was
for publicly criticizing Dr. Brown even though he knew nothing of what Dr.
Brown wrote. This is very typical of ICR employees.]
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:20:03 -0700
To: waltxxxx
From: "Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx" <xxxxxxx [at] xxxx.xxx>
9
Subject: An olive branch
Dear Walt:
Thank you for sending me a copy (12/12/99) of your correspondence with Andrew
Snelling. I've been wanting to drop you a line ever since then.
You may have noticed that some years ago I ceased to criticize you publicly and
privately. That is because I woke up and realized that I would much rather be on your
side than on that of characters like Hugh Ross, Glen Morton, Davis Young, Eugenie
Scott, etc. I realized that small quibbles (such as over which flood model is correct, or
whose cosmology is right) pale into insignificance beside the fact that you are teaching a
young world, a worldwide flood, and all the other basics of a correct view of scripture.
Please keep it up.
I also want to dissociate myself in your mind from Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, and the
ICC people, Steve Rodabaugh and Bob Walsh. Whatever arguments they may pick with
you, I want nothing to do with.
So I hope you will understand my different attitude. While I think flood models and
cosmologies are important, and while I still differ with you and Barry Setterfield on those
topics, I don't want to fight bitterly about such things with the brethren. I would much
rather fight the Rossites, who are not brothers at all!
Sincerely in Christ,
Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Apology from Mr. Xxxx
to Walt Brown
[It should be noted that this apology was very likely a result of my (Kevin
Lea’s) efforts to determine the source of Bruce Wood’s (of ICR) written
statement that Dr. Brown’s ideas were laughable (see ICR’s December 29,
2007, response to Schooler’s request). Bruce Wood had written this in a
letter to a member of our congregation who was asking for ICR’s position on
Dr. Brown’s work. Bruce Wood’s other written comments showed that he
had zero knowledge of what Dr. Brown writes related to the Hydroplate
Theory. This letter of apology shows how Mr. Xxxx ’s private comments
ended up as ICR’s public position for years. These responses clearly show
that neither Mr. Xxxx, Mr. Wood, nor Mr. John Arend (who preceded Mr.
10
Wood) knew what Dr. Brown wrote. This is very typical of ICR
employees.]
From: "Xxxx Xxxxxx" <Xxxx [at] xxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <waltxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: an offense on my part
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:46:57 -0700
Dear Dr. Walt Brown,
It has recently come to my attention that inflammatory words concerning you and your
work such as laughable and no serious scientist are probably attributable to me. For this I
offer my wholehearted apology. Never would I willfully use such words in print, but a
former associate at ICR who assists with public inquiries had fallen into a very
mischievous habit of quoting me from hallway conversations without first asking my
permission, and then mixing my words with his own for use in replies to the public. This
is highly improper yet I accept full blame. Absent a record of any kind I cannot be 100%
certain that this language originated with me, but I recognize the words and consider this
to be very probable. It should not be attributed to Drs. Steve Austin, John Baumgardner,
nor any other ICR-affiliated scientist.
Indeed I have reservations about your model, but do not believe such language is suitable
for any kind of private, much less, public discourse. And so I ask you please to not let
this transgression of mine in any way hinder your relations with other persons or
organizations to whom you may have associated these words. If there be any ill will over
this, let it fall on me.
Yours in truth, and in Christ,
Xxxx Xxxxxx
Letter From Grant Johnson To ICR
Complaining About How ICR Unethically
Maligns Dr. Brown’s Work Without A
Knowledge Of What His Theory Teaches
(It should be noted that I have never talked to nor do I know Mr.
Johnson. He came to these conclusions completely separate from me.
Dr. Brown sent me this letter because of how similar it is to my
independent findings.)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
11
From: G Johnson <xxxxx [at] xxxx.com>
Subject: Re: Hydroplate Theory
To: Info <xxxxx@xxx>
Dear Mr. Wood,
I am entirely disappointed with your organization and your unsatisfactory response.
Some of your leadership have fingerprints all over a knife that was jammed deeply into
the back of one they could learn from, but are apparently too proud to do so. ICR owes
Dr. Walt Brown and the people they've lied to and mislead over the years, more than your
form response. Yes, I'm angry.
A few years ago I purchased "Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth" from ICR. I
believe it is a good, scientifically sound book. However, what struck me as most ironic
was the prologue by Dr. John D. Morris. On page iii, paragraph one, he states,
"Every scientist worthy of the name should always be willing to adjust his thinking as
new data come in, continually striving for a more complete understanding of reality."
By that logic, six of your scientists come dangerously close to being labeled unworthy of
the name. Instead of "scientist", how about plagiarist, or slanderer? As a State Trooper, I
testify in court regularly. If I'm dishonest and the judge knows it, I might as well find a
different job because he or she will never trust my testimony again. I'm talking about
integrity. Some of your leadership lack this quality. I've seen much of the evidence.
With Steven A. Austin's, track record of plagiarism, and Humphreys slanderous remarks
(both regarding Walt Brown), can either of these two clowns be "recommended with
confidence to any who wish to sponsor local creation seminars or similar meetings in
their own areas" as your website states? My conclusion is that their integrity is seriously
tainted and questionable.
I've been stonewalled by ICR time and time again on the topic of the Hydroplate Theory
[HPT]. The more I investigate this controversy, (investigation is a big part of my job by
the way) the more disgusted I become. And not with Dr. Brown either. He has been
extremely, almost painfully, transparent regarding this issue. On the other hand, I've got
ICR, who initially provided me with false information and condescendingly put down Dr.
Walt Brown when it was clear, by the information I received, no one in your institution
has even a basic understanding of the Hydroplate Theory. In my job, when someone
refuses to talk to me, they always have something to hide. I'm not directing these
statements at you personally, Mr. Wood, but you are the only one who responds to my
questions at all. If you have doubts about my charge against Austin and Humphreys, do a
little research of your own. It's not hard to find. My assumption is that, after this email,
NO ONE will respond to my questions.
Furthermore, I know for a fact I'm not the only one who has raised this issue with ICR.
Indeed, I believe this issue gets raised time and time again. When will ICR no longer be
content to hide their heads in the sand and hope the issue goes away?
12
Look, I like ICR. I think they have great information and, in most areas, do good
science. However, ICR is doing exactly what they complain evolutionists do. They
ignore other scientific perspectives because they are convinced their view is correct. You
can't say that about Walt Brown. He has analyzed both the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
[CPT] and the now quietly abandoned Canopy Theory, the latter being a horrible
embarrassment.
Mr. Wood. I'm no longer asking you to provide me with a critique of the HPT. Frankly,
I don't believe one exists because no one will take the time to understand it. I'm asking
you to personally look into this issue. Contact Brown himself. Read the Theory for
yourself. Ask questions of the leadership at ICR. I'm asking you to forward this letter to
the ICR leadership, especially Austin and Humphreys.
You stated in the opening paragraph of your email to me that "There is no need to
continue questioning ICR about an in-depth response to Dr. Brown's Hydroplate Theory."
On the contrary, I have a need. Who are you to decide what information I should want?
Unless you mean ICR is simply refusing to provide me with answers my honest
questions. I want to be informed on origins and in matters of Noah's flood. I want to:
"Be prepared to give an answer for the hope you have. The evidence for creation
covers the subjects of science, truth, nature, the Bible, and God as Creator. This
evidence serves to strengthen our faith in the Bible, answers the questions of the
skeptic and removes lingering doubts in the Christian".
As your website states.
I have been studying HPT and CPT for over a decade and am becoming increasingly
convinced Walt Brown has a far superior, more complete, scientifically sound flood
model theory. There's just one problem. I'm a cop. I'm not a geologist, engineer or a
physicist. I don't have the training to understand and evaluate these things at an in depth
level as ICR's scientists. If Christian laymen can't turn to ICR for these types of
questions, who can they turn to? Iron can't sharpen Iron if one of the pieces of iron
refuses to participate.
I want to become sharper and I will not just go away.
Grant T. Johnson
13