Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Creation magazine print - 1 yr new subn


US $25.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item

National Geographic readers switch to TJ [now Journal of Creation]

Feedback, 3 December 2004

I just read your article refuting the National Geographic magazine’s article on Evolution. It was interesting that I happened to read your article as my sentiments echo those of this website exactly.

What creationist article is causing a stir among National Geographic subscribers? Read National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin for yourself!

I was formerly a subscriber to National Geographic magazine and had been for years. I loved the articles, even though I usually skipped or disregarded any of the typical references to evolution that always accompanied them. But when I received this latest magazine and started to read the article you take to task here, I simply had enough. I guess it had finally become too much — the constant and pervading theme of evolution running through this magazine had finally soured it totally for me. I could not, as a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, support this obvious form of deception. I cancelled my subscription to National Geographic and have purchased a subscription to a truthful magazine: TJ! [now Journal of Creation]

Thank you so much for bringing the truth to a world that tries so hard to avoid it.

Bradley Jones
USA


For what it’s worth i sent the following to National Geographic recently. Thanks for the article; it is far more uplifting than theirs, keep up the good work!
What a wonderful article! Since going through its arguments I am more convinced than ever that Darwin was very wrong indeed. I am dumbfounded that you do not tackle the foundational question of how life came about. Whatever theories scientists have are dependent upon how life in its essence began. For you it is an act of faith that spontaneous generation took place at least once on our little planet (or maybe somewhere nearby in space). Since no reasonable person believes in spontaneous generation any more this is nothing short of a miracle I thought the theory of evolution was meant to depend on natural processes, not miracles. Perhaps this dependence on the miraculous for your theories is the real reason why so many people believe God created life it is really no different than what you are proposing.
In Jesus
Yvonne Clark
UK

Thanks for your response to the National Geographic article on evolution. I’ve been a subscriber for years to NG, but that article broke my back so I cancelled it and told them why. I also will be signing up to recieve TJ instead and get my money’s worth of real scientific data!
Tim Lehenbauer
USA

“Don’t spout off your faith as SCIENCE”

I find that this site lacks one very important qualification in the creation vs. evolution debate. It lacks any sense of the scientific process. I have seen you repeatedly denigrate evolution as being hopelessly based on faith, while shamelessly and thoughtlessly basing your arguments on the very same thing. If you wish to fight evolutionary science, you need to use scientific processes, or else you will not be taken seriously by the mainstream of the scientific community. Look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your view. Discuss it all, take it all into account. If you wish to say, “Evolutionists only look at the evidence that they say supports their view,” then rise above their level of conduct. Love the Lord, be faithful, but don’t act like blinded sheep, and for heaven’s sake, don’t spout off your faith as SCIENCE. Treat scientific things in scientific ways, and things of faith as things of faith. Scientific method tries to discover the provable unknown. Faith is the evidence of things that by their nature cannot be seen. I doubt this diatribe will ever see space on your site, but I would still request that you not submit my email address or mailing address to anyone for any reason.
X.B.
USA

I find that this site lacks one very important qualification in the creation vs. evolution debate. It lacks any sense of the scientific process.

You did not provide a definition of what the “scientific process” is. If you had followed our feedback rules, you would have been aware of articles such as “If you are truly scientists”, which shows, I believe, that we are well aware of such issues and the way in which materialists manipulate their definitions to exclude whatever they find unpalatable. See, for example, the admission by Lewontin.

I have seen you repeatedly denigrate evolution as being hopelessly based on faith, while shamelessly and thoughtlessly basing your arguments on the very same thing.

Of course, if you had read carefully, you would have realized that we have plenty of thought and not the slightest need of shame for pointing out that all theories about the past are based on assumptions. These assumptions in turn come from a belief system that is ultimately accepted by faith. So there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy on our part since we are upfront about our biases. But we object to the usual evolutionist propaganda that only creationists have faith while they don’t. I explained this a few years ago in Refuting Evolution chapter 1.

If you wish to fight evolutionary science, you need to use scientific processes, or else you will not be taken seriously by the mainstream of the scientific community.

Content-free generalizations do not accomplish much. Some specifics would help. And of course, the mainstream of the scientific community is concerned with operational science not origins, so has no use for evolution (“goo-to-you”) anyway. It’s ironic to see evolutionists on the one hand claiming that evolution is essential for biology, but on the other hand lamenting the move away from evolution “to a more utilitarian science” which demands “more practical benefits from science” (Evolution and practical science). And anti-creationist Larry Witham, in his book Where Darwin Meets the Bible (Oxford University Press, 2002) cites a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which shows how limited evolution really is as a practical scientific theory:

While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organized 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.

Look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your view. Discuss it all, take it all into account. If you wish to say, “Evolutionists only look at the evidence that they say supports their view,” then rise above their level of conduct.

This shows that you have little idea of our approach. We do not try to fight “their” evidence with “our” evidence. Rather, we point out that all evidence must be interpreted. Creationists have exactly the same evidence as evolutionists, but we show that it makes better sense interpreted under a biblical framework.

Love the Lord,

We love the Lord who said “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), affirmed the reality of the global Flood (Luke 17:26–27) and believed in a “recent” creation—see Jesus and the age of the world. I hope it is the same Lord that you love, because only in Him is there salvation (John 14:6).

… be faithful,

But faith in what? We endeavour to have a reasoned faith in God, based on the truth of God’s Word. What is the alternative? Trust fallen man’s fallible story telling about the past?

but don’t act like blinded sheep, and for heaven’s sake, don’t spout off your faith as SCIENCE.

You need to tell your fellow evolutionists not to promote their materialistic faith as “science”, blinded by their naturalistic ideology.

Treat scientific things in scientific ways, and things of faith as things of faith. Scientific method tries to discover the provable unknown.

According to many philosophers of science, science can only disprove things.

Faith is the evidence of things that by their nature cannot be seen.

It is. But while the biblical faith has strong supporting evidence in fulfilled prophecies and the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, evolutionary faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of missing links not seen. See also Fallacious Faith which addresses common misconceptions about faith in the biblical sense.

I doubt this diatribe will ever see space on your site,

Be careful about what you wish for (with such manipulative tactics) because you might just get it!

but I would still request that you not submit my email address or mailing address to anyone for any reason.

X.B.
USA

An unnecessary request because this is our policy anyway.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Brisbane, Australia


It has been said that “Information is power”. When it comes to creation information we’d have to agree. Keep the ‘powerful’ evidence for God being Creator coming. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
2203
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.