Can CMI refute … ?
CMI often receives questions about refuting specific TV shows. For instance, P. L., USA, writes:
Archaeoastronomy purports to date ancient pagan sites by figuring out how long ago the site lined up with the summer solstice. On the TV show, America Unearthed, Scott Wolter claimed an age of 3,000 BC for a small stone temple in Pennsylvania. This is a reasonable argument if the temple once lined up with the summer solstice. What other explanation might be offered? Naturally, anything that old should have been destroyed in the Flood.
Thanks and blessings!
And M.S., Canada, writes:
I was wondering if you have taken upon yourselves or are aware of another publication that is attempting the rebut the claims made on Bible Secrets Revealed, a show on History television presented by Dr. Robert Cargill. I’m aware that you have already taken note of some of the claims, such as contradictions and Gilgamesh vs. the flood, but I was hoping to see a point by point rebuttal, if possible.
CMI does sometimes review TV series; for instance, see our reviews of Testing God: Killing the Creator, Did Darwin Kill God, and The Bible miniseries. But reviewing a series involves a lot of work for our staff. A member of our staff, or sometimes several staff, must watch the series and write down notes, and then we have to put that in a form that is easily understandable for our audience. If we were to do this very often, it would cut into our time to do other things that are critical for our ministry.
More importantly, the answers to the arguments brought up on the TV series are usually addressed in our archive of over 9,000 articles (at the time of writing—and growing every day!). It may be a little more work to search our site (search button on top right of all pages) or Q&A pages to find the answers, but it can be a rewarding process for people who make the effort.
Also, overly emphasizing refuting specific TV shows would make it seem like it’s about arguments, and who has the best evidence. When really, it’s about worldview and how we interpret that evidence. A lot of what our ministry does is help people to have the foundation to be able to interpret evidence in the media and unravel the assumptions involved in the unbiblical conclusions.
For instance, in the first question, we could say that all historical science involves many assumptions, and those assumptions may or may not be true. Conversely, the Bible is a trustworthy historical record, so if historical science claims something that contradicts the record of Scripture, we should not hesitate to reject it on those grounds. Also, what were the measurement uncertainties? This applies to proper archaeological research papers. And serious archaeologists would disagree with a TV host like Wolters that ancient Irishmen built the Pennsylvania stone bath chambers in question.
The same idea applies to books, blogs, and all sorts of other media. We appreciate when our readers bring our attention to materials, and sometimes we decide that the teaching value to our readers is worth reviewing a specific series.
Last of all, if a reader believes that it is important for there to be a specific rebuttal of a TV show, perhaps consider whether you may be able to refute the show yourself! It is easy to start a blog or a website, and we encourage people to link to and use the wealth of information accumulated on creation.com.