Response to the Columbus Dispatch Article Titled:
"Roaches write long success story"

In order to avoid possible copyright infringements, we do not quote the entire Columbus Dispatch article in our response. To obtain a copy of original Dispatch article, click here.

excerpts from original article = brown
our responses = black

Also see this link: Microevolution does not prove Macroevolution

The insects' 350 million years of evolution demonstrate a remarkable ability to survive, adapt and thrive in humans' habitats.

What evidence is there for saying that roaches have been around for 350 million years? The evidence is non-existent. This is a fairy tale, based on flawed dating methods.

While sticking to the same basic body design that their ancestors used 350 million years ago, cockroaches have evolved into about 3,5000 separate species, most of which spend their lives unnoticed and unidentified in wild habitats such as forests, ...

This statement provides compelling evidence that microevolution does occur. Creationists would agree with that. However, this sentence also provides wonderful evidence that macroevolution does not occur. We started off with roaches, and an alleged 350 million years later we still have just roaches. This is the same tired argument the Columbus Dispatch keeps printing over and over again as part of their misleading evolution propaganda campaign. They've done articles where lizards evolved into lizards and bacteria evolved into bacteria. This story might be more interesting if some of these roaches had evolved into some kind of a higher creature. But when all was said and done, there were still just roaches. This is entirely consistent with what the Bible teaches about creatures reproducing only after their own "kind". And as usual, the Dispatch obediently prints whatever their evolutionary co-conspirators give them to print without question. Were any Creation scientists asked about this? Were any evolutionists who have opposing views asked about this? If not, why not?

Remember, it was just very recently that the Dispatch obediently printed an article about dinosaurs evolving into birds. But was the Dispatch honest enough to tell you what the Smithsonian Institution had to say about those so called "scientists"? You might want to call them up and ask them why they didn't tell you about this? They can't claim they didn't know. This letter to the editor was sent to several people at the Dispatch to make them aware of it. While you've got them on the phone, you may also want to ask them why they've held back information like this about the dino-to-bird controversy.When you see fairy tales of millions of years of evolution in the Dispatch, remember how they withheld compelling opposing views in the dino-to-bird controversy. It is prudent to suspect them of doing the same with other evolutionary propaganda. The Dispatch is not promoting good science by printing articles like this. They are knowingly or unknowingly promoting the false religion of evolution and they apparently don't want you to see the overwhelming evidence that is stacked against it. Don't buy into the Dispatch's propaganda. Call them on it and demand that they start allowing creation scientists the opportunity to present the opposing view in their paper.

Many people assume that, because roaches were here before dinosaurs, they're living fossils. Not so Koehler says: "The reality is they've had a longer time to evolve.

Both dinosaurs, man and roaches were created on the 6th day of creation according to God, who was en eye-witness to the event. No evolutionist saw roaches on the planet 350 million years ago. Also, dinosaurs were alleged by some evolutionists to have evolved into birds. If the roaches had longer than dinosaurs to evolve, why are they still just roaches? They've had 350 million years (according to evolutionists) to evolve into something more interesting. Someone apparently forgot to tell the little critters to continue evolving.

Cockroaches also eat younger colony members, especially those that have recently molted, losing their hard outer shell. that behavior puzzles Koehler, who can't see any evolutionary advantage for insects who eat their own offspring.

The answer to this dilemma is obvious. There's no evolutionary advantage for this behavior because evolution never occurred.

Contact us with your comments or questions.