The only way evolution can survive is by censorship, not science
There has been a lot in the media lately promoting some ridiculous claims about evolution. Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor 5 to 7 million years ago in the paper, AOL's lead news story claimed sponges were the first animal common ancestor, Newsweek had a little column glorifying a couple studying Darwin's finches and, of course, PBS has promoted yet another mini-series on human evolution. These claims are so outrageous, why don't more people see that?
I agree with you and it is frustrating that so much publicity is given to such "ridiculous claims." However, it is good that you have had your "baloney detector" on and have identified these stories as "outrageous." Phillip Johnson, in his book Darwin on Trial quotes the famous evolutionist Carl Sagan by using the his term "baloney detector." Although Sagan's definition of baloney is different than the Christian the concept of detecting ridiculous claims applies to your question. Sadly, many people do not detect baloney because they accept evolution without question. John Morris sums up the problem well, "Most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution. That's all they've ever been taught. If creation is mentioned, it's ridiculed and unfairly caricatured. Thus, evolution is assumed, not proved, and creation is denied, not refuted."
So, even though there is much that can and should be said refuting claims of common ancestor, etc. we must realize that the fundamental issue is not science but interpretations. It is more important to teach people how to think than it is to teach them what to think. But as you have noted with the media today critical thinking about the issue of origin seems to be ignored. Unless people realize that what is presented in these stories are interpretations of evidence instead of real, scientific evidence the real truth cannot be understood. Evolutionists and creationists have the same facts, the same evidence, the same Galapagos finches. Why is it that we come to different conclusions? The reason is that the starting presuppositions are different. One who believes in the historical accuracy of the Bible including the origin of the universe, the origin of death and the events like Noah's Flood will draw different conclusions than one who denies the truth of the Bible and believes that the mechanistic laws of nature are adequate to explain all phenomena. Unfortunately, however, the fact remains that the media rarely presents both sides of an origins issue and unless people begin to think presuppositionally and oppose the starting assumptions of evolution than the Bible will continue to be demeaned and poor science will continue to be promoted unchallenged.
Johnson also points out in his book that this new form of control exercised by mainstream media is oppressive. The lung power given to evolution by the media allows them to win the debate simply by out shouting any opposition. Evolution is presented as a synonym for science and those opposing it are stereotyped as "extreme Genesis literalists who reject science for purely religious reasons." Straw man arguments are used to distort the creationist's position in order to make it easier to attack. Focusing on questions like, "Did Adam have a belly button?" allows them to divert the debate from scientific evidence presented against it. Selective use of evidence ignoring that which it finds inconvenient was especially apparent in the "Chimps to Humans" column you mentioned. One of the most effective fallacious arguments used to support evolution in these programs and columns is "begging the question." As stated earlier, evidence is interpreted based on starting assumptions to produce conclusions. However, instead of moving from the evidence to the conclusion evolution is presented as a foregone conclusion which is used to interpret the evidence which then proves the conclusion! This is also called circular reasoning and it is easily identified in the programs and columns you mentioned if you have your baloney detector on.
Phillip Johnson sums it up, "the power and prestige (of Darwinism) rest not on any real scientific accomplishment but on the theory's role in upholding the ruling philosophy." Ian Taylor describes “intellectual blind spots brought about philosophical presuppositions” in the scientific community. Evolutionists start with preconceptions that they cannot support. Their prejudice unconsciously influences their interpretations of data, with the result that untrue and sometimes dangerous conclusions masquerade under the impartial banner of science.
Only by suppressing the good science presented by creation scientists can evolution thrive. Until people realize that what is presented in the media is only interpretations of evidence and not evidence the media will continue to present these programs and articles unchallenged.
Previous Article Table of Contents Next Article
Perhaps you could get my column published in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.
Originally published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen