The media spin on the creationists
A response to The creationist spin on our origins by the Toronto Star
by Richard Fangrad
NASA wikipedia.com
As CMI reaches more people we are receiving increasing media attention. A consistent
feature in almost all media reports is the inaccuracy of reporting on what CMI actually
believes, revealing an incredible
bias against anything Christian. This is accompanied by a lack of understanding
of the historical/philosophical
aspects common to both the creation and evolution interpretations of the
past:
- They are both claims about history, about events that occurred in the past.
Both are accepted ultimately by faith.1
(No scientist was there millions of years ago to observe reptiles evolving into
birds, for example.)
- Neither is ‘provable’ using experimental science, which involves making
repeated observations about things happening in the present.
- There is not a single observation that evolutionists can make that creationists
would disagree with. We observe fossils, light coming from distant stars, animals
becoming adapted to changing environments, the incredible complexity of life, etc.
Observations are interpreted to fit with either evolution or creation.
An article by Joseph Wilson2
appearing in the Toronto Star is a good example. He reports on a CMI event in Toronto
with Dr Tas Walker
and myself.
Accompanying the article was a box containing a list of subjects entitled, The creationist
spin on our origins. Our name, Creation Ministries International,
was placed at the end of this list, presumably to suggest that CMI holds the views
discussed. One has to wonder where The Star got this information. Readily accessible
articles on our website on each of the topics tell a different story.
We appreciate The Toronto Star article because it provides us with an opportunity
to clarify misconceptions some people have about creation.
Hong Kong Science Museum
The creationist spin on our origins
Toronto Star: Dinosaurs: Dinosaur fossils that have been found
everywhere from the Alberta badlands to northern China point to evidence of Noah's
flood, the catastrophic event that wiped them out a few thousand years ago.
CMI: The dinosaur fossils we find were buried by Noah’s Flood
and are evidence for it. But the Flood did not wipe out the dinosaurs because
Noah took representatives of each kind of dinosaur on the Ark. There is plenty of
evidence of dinosaurs living
recently, after the Flood.
TS: Fossils: The vast diversity of fossils found worldwide proves
that Noah's flood was global. Although paleontologists date the fossils depending
on what level of the Earth they were found in (a process known as stratigraphy),
creationists say these strata cannot be trusted due to the violent transformation
of the Earth after the flood.
CMI: We don’t say the fossils prove the global Flood
but that they are consistent with the Flood. Fossils are found on every continent
of the world in sedimentary rock deposited rapidly under water. This is what we
would expect to find as a result of the global Flood. Clearly it is a good explanation
for the observations. Regarding stratigraphy, it is not that ‘the strata cannot
be trusted’ (lower layers are deposited before upper layers), but that the
dates evolutionists assign to the strata cannot be trusted. For details see the
Fossils section
in the FAQ list and Dr Tas Walker’s
Biblical Geology page.
TS: Plate tectonics: The Earth's surface has indeed shifted, but
instead of occurring gradually over millions of years, these changes occurred in
measurements of hundreds of years.
CMI: The creationist CPT (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) model has
the separation of the supercontinent taking place within the year of the Flood (not
over hundreds of years). This model was developed
Dr John Baumgardner, the world’s leading geophysicist in this area,
and is supported by the rock-strength properties of the mantle. See the chapter
on continental
drift in the
Creation Answers Book for more information.
Photo by Doug Dolde wikipedia.com
TS: The Grand Canyon: The Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's
flood, depositing the sediment that created the canyon in only a few years. After
the flood, the water receded, revealing fossilized marine creatures and vertebrate
footprints, proof of the existence of the animals killed in the flood.
CMI: The
layers of sediment in the walls of Grand Canyon were deposited in the Flood.
Some of the lowest rock visible would have formed either during Day 3 of Creation
Week when the waters were gathered into one place or very early in the Flood. The
canyon was cut either as the floodwaters were receding from the continent or after
the Flood, when huge lakes to the east and northeast burst their natural dams and
drained rapidly through the area. For a comprehensive creationist assessment of
Grand Canyon see
Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe and
Grand Canyon: A Different View.
Human origins: The fossils of humans and human-like species that
have been organized into a chronology by anthropologists were, in fact, contemporaries.
All of them died during the great flood except Noah and his family on the Ark, the
ancestors to all modern people.
CMI: The supposed ape-men fossils found thus far all appear to
be post-Flood, not pre-Flood.
This article demonstrates the imaginative thinking of evolutionists ‘organized
chronology’ of the alleged ape to human fossils.
Radiometric dating: The strongest case for old-Earth geology lies
with the evidence taken from radiometric dating. Elements such as Potassium-40 decay
over time into lighter atoms (Argon-40) with a predictable half-life. Creationist
criticisms generally focus on the small percentage of error in any radioactive dating
technique.
evolutionary geologists don’t accept radiometric dates either, if they don’t
agree with what they think they should be
CMI: The idea of an old earth came not from radiometric dating
but from the philosophy of uniformitarianism popularized nearly 100 years before
radioactivity was discovered. Creationist criticisms of radiometric dating focus
on the fact that every dating method requires assumptions to be made about the past,
including how much parent and daughter isotope was in the rock when if formed. And
we certainly don’t focus on any small percentage of error. Rocks known to
have formed in historic times regularly give dates of ‘millions of years’
when tested. In fact, evolutionary geologists don’t accept radiometric dates
either, if they don’t agree with what they think they should be (see
The way it really is and
The dating game.).
Natural selection: Surprisingly, some creationists accept the basic
premise of natural selection—that genetic variation leaves certain species
better adapted than others. However, they claim this only happens through the loss
of genetic code and deny the possibility that genetic mutation can lead to more
complexity over time.
CMI: Surprisingly? The reason it is surprising is, again, because
the media generally doesn’t understand what creationists actually say. Creationists
(and others) wrote on natural
selection before Darwin. No doubt there is a lot of
confusion about natural selection fitting with creation. Evolutionists
see natural selection as the ‘super-hero’ that can evolve one kind of
creature into a different kind, but
the facts tell a different story. By the way, it does not involve a loss
of genetic code, but of genetic
information.
Astronomy: The vast distances commonly referred to in astronomy,
which often require millions of light years, are actually much smaller. After all,
the stars in the sky were actually created after the Earth according to Genesis,
so the heavens are one day shy of the Earth's 4004 BC
birthdate.
NASA wikipedia.com
CMI: Virtually no creationists, certainly no one at CMI, would
suggest that the distances to stars and galaxies are ‘much smaller’.
Creationists have several cosmologies that explain how light could get to the earth
from distant galaxies within the biblical timeframe. See this
summary in the
Creation Answers Book for details. The new book Starlight, Time and
the New Physics by
Dr John Hartnett (available Dec 2007) develops this model even
further. Note too that evolutionists have their own
light travel time problem, but Wilson does not seem to be aware of that.
Likely, many people read the article in the Toronto Star but most will not see this
article and be aware that there are answers. After you have checked out our website,
why not spread the message to those you know who may be seeking the truth? Let
them know about this article, this site, and the helpful resources available in
the store.
For more information about what creationists really believe, visit the
FAQ section. Then do your friends a favour and let them know about it.
Recommended Resources
References
- Not blind faith, of course. Evidence does matter.
Return to Text.
- Joseph Wilson, Blinding them with ‘science’, Toronto
Star, Oct 13, 2007.
http://www.thestar.com/living/Religion/article/266351
Return to Text.
Published: 14 November 2007(GMT+10)
| Give $5 for 5. Although this article may have only taken 5 minutes to read, it could have taken over 5 hours to write. Consider a $5 donation to support our ministry efforts.  | | |
|
