IT IS not surprising that Daniel Singh cannot say what makes him a ‘pastor’. Asked repeatedly for the simple Christian truths regarding which theological school he graduated from and what is the name of his church, he dodges and tries obfuscation instead. In his letter (GC June 10), Singh evades the questions by saying that his credentials as a ‘pastor’ have nothing to do with him quoting a newspaper article. Readers will note that Singh did not quote a newspaper at first; he said he was quoting scientists. Asked to name these scientists, he was then forced to admit that he was citing a newspaper opinion column (not a news story) as his source.

The ducking, sidestepping, and eluding are typical of some writers, who barefacedly attack skeptics who point out the fallacious nature of their claims. It would all be very funny, if it wasn’t really so sad.

Singh declares: “I have even listed the credentials and source of some of my findings.” Findings! Reading the London Times and copying what a columnist said is a ‘finding’? What an absurd idea of what a logical conclusion means!

But then again, Singh did read a complete public account, witnessed full financial and scientific disclosure on TV, observed a specimen at a full public display in one of the world’s largest museums and yet still found that there is a “plot” concerning the Ida fossil.

No one cares that Singh misreads in the London Times, we want to know why he adds the title of “pastor” to his name, and why, so far, he chooses to evade answering that simplest of question.

Daniel Singh made his debut as “pastor” in the newspapers, claiming that he witnessed a miracle of a supernatural polio healing. He was later forced to admit that the patient was, in fact, receiving medical treatment in hospital for this specific ailment. The “pastor” then clarified that his grandfather is not a tree monkey. He went on to insist that the missing link is not in the zoo, but is actually a mermaid; that the Gospels are a historical record, despite the fact that sensible Christians know it was written sixty to a hundred years after Jesus was crucified, and that they regard it more as God-inspired teachings.

Singh now declares that the Carnegie Museum is a “leading critic” of the Ida fossil. But a cursory investigation of his claim proves it to be untrue (Letter: Fudging the truth – KN June 8h).

Until Daniel Singh (if that’s even his real name) tells us what qualifies him to be a “pastor,” I would categorise his letters in the same vein as his other claims made above.

Indeed, if Singh can preach that the missing link is a mermaid, what’s to stop him from also claiming that he’s a “pastor”?