Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Campaign to silence BBC presenter Dan Walker for his creationist views

wiki.apterous.org GOTD-dan-walker
Dan Walker who was recently appointed to present BBC Breakfast.


Published: 18 February 2016 (GMT+10)

A row has erupted over the appointment of a ‘creationist sports presenter’ to a lead position in BBC News. Committed Christian Dan Walker—who has previously refused to work on Sunday because of his faith—has been selected to head-up the BBC Breakfast News. Unfortunately a section of the news media has raised rather hysterical objections with an anonymous tip-off to the press from someone at the BBC (perhaps deliberately raising a storm around the so-called ‘Darwin day’ celebrated annually on 12th February). The Times first reported comments from a “senior BBC figure”, an insider, who wondered whether such beliefs have a place at the BBC, suggesting Walker is a “bit nutty” and “pretty loopsville”. This well-hidden figure, who doesn’t wish to be named, wondered how such a presenter could objectively report on the findings of old fossils for instance.1

Other news reporters picked up on this with Dan Hitchens at The Spectator offering some support to Walker.2 However, Rupert Myers, who is a freelance journalist, barrister, and self-proclaimed Christian, wrote a piece in The Daily Telegraph expressing distaste at the prospect of a person such as Walker holding a high profile post, and as part of his attack offered a very inaccurate analysis of creationist beliefs.3

Once again it would seem that belief in evolution leads to a situation where even self-proclaimed Christians lose respect for other believers who dare to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. Often this antagonism is associated with a weak grasp of the ideological bias of ‘evolutionary science,’ a poor understanding of how science works, and a failure to engage with what biblical creationists actually believe. For instance, he claims that modern creationists understand that “God planted dinosaur skeletons in the ground to give us all something to talk about…” This is patently absurd, and would be clearly evident to anyone who bothered to take the time to find out what creationists really teach by reading their research papers and articles. What is it about Darwin’s belief system that causes some to stumble into the mire of ill-informed comment and intolerance towards others because of their beliefs? This is really old-fashioned bullying.

Bullying not dialogue

A culture of bullying has all too often characterised Darwin supporters, from the time of Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, onwards.4 The Duke of Argyle complained of a ‘Reign-of-Terror’, orchestrated by Huxley, towards any who even questioned Darwin.5 Today, leading Christian theistic evolutionists often encouraged by the church, open the door for abuse towards their fellow believers. Dennis Alexander, a self-proclaimed ‘evangelical Christian’, who praised the creative power of evolution one Christmas,6 called creationists an embarrassment to the gospel.7 Even the well-respected Christian theologian N.T. Wright doesn’t think creationism is an allowable position and suggests that its proponents need not be accepted as part of the Christian family.8 These learned leaders should instead set a better example, especially as Christ prayed that all Christians might be united (John 17:21).

Myer’s inaccurate article in the Daily Telegraph

For Myers’ part, his aggressive attack in the respected UK-based Daily Telegraph drew upon tired and misguided comparisons, equating belief in creation with holocaust-denial, belief in a flat earth and geocentrism. He then made a false comparison between historically verifiable events, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, and the age of the Earth, which is not historically verifiable by human witnesses:

“A news reporter who denied basic facts from the past such as the French revolution, the explosion of Mount Vesuvius, or the Holocaust would surely raise eyebrows at interview. Climate change denial, or a denial of heliocentrism, would be unlikely to find favour at the BBC. And yet they have just selected a creationist to front their Breakfast show.”

Although he thinks that religious belief should be given a generous “margin of respect” in “a free society,” such respect evidently does not extend to those who hold to the historicity of the Genesis creation account. He writes that creationism “should be consigned to the bin of unreasonable, untenable fact-allergic nonsense. Creationists cannot be trusted to report objectively.” According to Myers, Dan Walker is unfit to hold the job of an impartial news reporter because his creationist views might get in the way of effectively promoting acceptance of tenets of naturalistic science.9 But all BBC presenters are supposed to be impartial in reporting the news, especially as it is a publicly-funded national institution. The problem is that the ‘impartial’ BBC, as well as much of the media, has been promoting naturalism in origins science, together with other liberal ideas, for years and in opposition to the doctrines of the Christian church. In science, this is treating the narrative of ‘molecules to man evolution’ and deep-time as verifiable fact when they are nothing of the kind. We do of course encourage the BBC to report impartially and we welcome the fact that a respected Christian has a place in the news media.

Myers also comments,

Creationism doesn’t just deny Darwinian evolution, it denies the findings of astronomy and chemistry, the age of the Universe, the scientific consensus that underpins carbon dating, and ice core samples over half a million years old.

Of course this is hyperbolic nonsense. While creationists do reject long-age dating and millions of years, we accept operational science, the things that can be demonstrated in real time. We fully accept the reality of chemical properties for instance, but consider that there are legitimate research questions that may lead to new discoveries, such as investigating the constancy of decay rates. Creationists have also pointed out anomalies with carbon dating, for instance highlighting the unexpected presence (from a naturalistic perspective) of carbon-14 in dinosaur bones and even diamonds. (14C has a relatively short half-life of only 5,730 years and would not be expected to be present in anything that is millions of years old.)10 What is rejected is pre-historical science, because it is an old age narrative imposed upon the scientific evidence, and a narrative that arises from pagan sources at that (see Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?).

Charles Darwin recognised the influence of his grandfather’s work Zoonomia, even as he developed a more Epicurean approach to evolution than his grandfather’s overt paganism.11 In Zoonomia Erasmus Darwin spoke of millions of ages even before any scientific justification was attempted.12 The work of the 18th century French Hindu sympathiser Benoit de Maillet, who argued for billions of years of change, was also an acknowledged influence upon Darwin.13 Both 18th Century writers assumed long ages because of their prior-commitment to Greek paganism and/or Hinduism.

Creationists on the other hand are supporters of good science based upon actual evidence, and many of the leading scientists in history were creationists. As secular historians of science often acknowledge, it was the Christian belief in a God who was orderly and rational that inspired people to do science. People like Isaac Newton expected the world to be intelligible because of the nature of the One who created it, and they expected to be able to understand it because the Bible taught that they had been made in God’s image.

Creationism has also proved a good teaching aid for science (a good heuristic). For instance the work of Steno, the father of geology, was based upon belief in a global flood and scientific evidence, and helped bring about acceptance of the organic origin of fossils against the neo-pagan plastic theory popular at the time.14

Myers comments further that “creationism is so silly that the government has de-funded schools which teach it. They are not eligible for taxpayer support…” This of course is because of a campaign by secular humanists, militant Darwin supporters, who are engaged in a determined and discriminatory effort to silence and exclude all who continue to dissent from Darwinism.

The irony is that there is increasing scientific evidence of incredible complexity and design in the cell even as the Darwinists seek to uphold its crumbling pillars by legal dictate and bullying. They resort to such tactics because the evidence is failing them—even leading secular scientists and philosophers are now questioning neo-Darwinism.15


Once again we see the Darwinian-evolutionary establishment seeking to exclude a creationist from holding public office simply because of their beliefs. This would of course be illegal according to UK Employment Law, so instead we have anonymous tip-offs and aggressive and inaccurate commentary from journalists. Surely in a civilised society this sort of conduct is out of place. Public servants should be allowed to hold their legitimate religious beliefs openly without fear of reprisals or whispering campaigns from secular humanists.

References and notes

  1. Rigby E. and Burgess, K., Creationist presenter Dan Walker to host BBC Breakfast, The Times, 11 February 2016; thetimes.co.uk. Return to text
  2. Hitchens, D., Dan Walker’s creationism shouldn’t disqualify him from breakfast TV The Spectator, 11 February 2016; spectator.co.uk. Return to text
  3. Myers, R., Dan Walker’s creationism is an affront to reason, science and logic, Daily Telegraph, 11 February 2016; telegraph.co.uk. Return to text
  4. Sibley, A., Bathybius haeckelii and a ‘reign of terror’, J. Creation 23(1):123–127 April 2009; creation.com/bathybius. Return to text
  5. Duke of Argyll, A reply: science falsely so called, The Nineteenth Century 21:771–774, May 1887. Return to text
  6. Alexander, D., Evolution, Christmas and the atonement, The Guardian, 23 December 2011; theguardian.com. Alexander writes, “Evolution’s gift is a complex brain that endows humanity with free will, enabling personal moral responsibilities towards our neighbour and towards God.” Return to text
  7. In Alexander, D., Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?, Monarch Books, 2008. In a postscript he suggests that Christians who deny evolution are “dangerous”, and “disgraceful” and therefore “embarrassing” to the gospel. Christians who question evolution he thinks are “divisive and split the Christian community.” Return to text
  8. Wright, N.T., Surprised by Scripture: Engaging with Contemporary Issues, SPCK Publishing, p. 31, 2014. Return to text
  9. Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that space, time, energy and matter comprise the whole of reality, denying any spiritual dimension to human existence. Atheistic adherents seek to develop a purely naturalistic account for the origin of life on Earth. Return to text
  10. Wieland, C., Radiocarbon in dino bones: International conference result censored, 22 January 2013; creation.com/c14-dinos and, Sarfati, J., Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years, Creation 28(4):26–27, September 2006; creation.com/diamonds. Return to text
  11. Keynes, R., Fossils, Finches and Fuegians: Charles Darwin’s Adventures and Discoveries on the Beagle 1832-1836, Harper Collins, London, pp. 7–8, 2002. Return to text
  12. Darwin, E., Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life, vol. 1, 2nd American ed., from 3rd London ed., corrected by the author, Boston Thomas and Andrews, pp. 397–401, 1803. Return to text
  13. Stott, R., Darwin’s Ghosts: In Search of the First Evolutionists, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, p. 116. Darwin put an acknowledgement in the 3rd edition of Origin of Species. De Maillet’s book was entitled Telliamed: or Conversations Between an Indian Philosopher and a French Missionary on the Diminution of the Sea, and the Origin of Men and Animals. Return to text
  14. Walker, T., Geological pioneer Nicolaus Steno was a biblical creationist, J. Creation 22(1):93–98, April 2008; creation.com/steno. Return to text
  15. Woodmorappe, J., Another knowledgable atheist acknowledges the inadequacy of materialistic evolutionary reductionism, J. Creation 27(2):21–22, 2013. Book review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press, 2012. Return to text

Readers’ comments

Robert D.
May I take a moment to encourage everyone here to use this issue with Dan as a way to witness. It is an "easy way in" to witness to friends, especially fellow football nuts. Also, lovingly and respectfully respond on insulting articles written to bring Dan down. Pray for Dan, pray for the "internet trolls" and the writers, and pray that many will ultimately be saved through the publicity and Dan's good example ...
Mike S.
Thanks again, CMI, for bringing this latest attack on a Bible believing Christian to our attention. Creation is such a fundamental doctrine that we need to defend at all costs. And your ministry equips us, 'ordinary' believers, to make that defence far more ably than we could without you. What I completely fail to understand is how people can claim to be Christians and yet blatantly contradict the plain teaching of Scripture. And then go on to attack Christians who accept the orthodox understanding.
Janine D.
To all my fellow Creationists. This is a call to prayer for Dan Walker and his family. CMI thank you for making me aware so I know how to pray for people and into important situations that arise.
2 Corinthians 10v4-5
Grahame G.
Since some above seem to be blaming the BBC for the "Creationist bashing" that's occurring, let me just register my appreciation (and, yes, surprise) that the BBC employed him in the first place and have not sacked him!

The enemy in this instance is not the BBC however much they may work for the enemy on other occasions. We should be registering our support for their decision to put Dan in this position and keep him there!
Ian N.
"Scientific Consensus", there that term that has nothing to do with science but politics. The politicising of science is a very worrisome problem.
David W.
Are evolutionists any more likely to be impartial?
L Marie T.
I did not read the entire article because I did not want to ingest, so early this morning, that evolutionary gloom and foolishness from those disparaging Walker. However, I hope that Creation Ministries and others are showing him the various types of support he needs as the Lord leads. This may be a setup from God! I pray for Walker’s wisdom, the wisdom of his fellow supporters, and a breakthrough in thinking and soundness for those opposing him.
Brent A.
I am thrilled that Dan Walker has been promoted to a lead position within the BBC but Rupert Myers' highly inaccurate article about Creationists views sadly reminds me of the infamous words of Charlie W Shedd "The problem is not that the churches are filled with empty pews, but that the pews are filled with empty people". Obviously Rupert Myers life falls within this quote. I don't know what "Christian" bible he follows but it's obviously not the same as mine. Further, I think any publisher should reconsider paying for any article that Rupert Myers submits as he has sadly demonstrated that he does not conduct thorough research into his investigations. His lack of knowledge of what Creationists actually believe proves that he will submit anything for money, even if it contradicts his own Christian beliefs. It's sad that Charlie W Shedd's quote rings so true. If everyone that professes to be a Christian actually studied and researched their own religion, we wouldn't have the problems that we have today.
Auke F.
When Dan Walker was a Muslim, then there was no problem, when Dan Walker was a witch, then there was no problem, when Dan Walker was a Buddhist, then there was no problem, when Dan Walker was an atheist/humanist, then there was no problem etc., but when he is a Christian, who believes in Jesus and in all of what Jesus said and he believes what the Bible teaches, then it is a problem. The problem is not that Dan Walker is a Christian like most Christians nowadays, but that Dan Walker is a Christian, like almost all Christians before Darwin. "Blessed are those who are prosecuted in My name." And that's what this is.
Michael S.
Unfortunately the creationist isn't allowed a defense it seems. I suspect that is because they want to portray creationists as stupid or loopy people but I never see them actually engage us. If they did, I think their sophistry and rhetoric would be dispatched fairly rapidly,which obviously would be embarrassing for their position hence the avoidance of any discussion. They also don't want to dignify our position with a response of course, as that would to be to let us put a foot in the door. All very predictable sinful behaviour - if you can't win then cheat and misrepresent almost to the point of complete lies.
Nigel L.
Once again we have Darwin and his theory being used to bash Christians. It is all very well commenting on this on our forum, but what are we really doing about it? Surely it is time to speak out with force against these narrow minded bigots. Darwin and his ilk have an awful lot to answer for. The holocaust being just one of many, committed in the name of eugenics inspired by 'good old Darwin'.
S. H.
The only thing the writer of the Telegraph column shows is his own intolerance and his own rejection of the very scientific and evidential principles that he seems to criticise others for not having. The encouraging thing is that by rehearsing such tired and nonsensical arguments and dated caricatures, he completely undermines his reasonings and therefore his argument. The destructive element is that he claims some kind of Christian faith. This was the experience of a friend in a school in the UK who was attacked viciously by a parent (claiming to be a Christian) for simply having creationist ideas expressed in lessons, alongside evolutionary ideas. These kinds of often scornful, arrogant, hateful and abusive attacks show the source of their ire is not God or Godly. Nor are their arguments, all too often.
Guy W.
Those who say they are Christians should, for their own sake, consider that Jesus and the New Testament confirm Genesis, Creation and the Flood. Now Jesus to be the sacrifice that God made to pay for our sins could NOT have sin on His own account. ie. Jesus could not have even one sin of His own or He would not be resurrectable! So if He told just one lie then the whole of Christianity would collapse. No He was and is the flawless, perfect Son of God. Those who call themselves Christians and deny any part of Scripture will find themselves calling God a liar be it by deliberation or by default. It is quite impossible for a Christian, except in his babyhood growth stage, to believe in Evolution or to deny the 6 day time frame of Creation. In fact the closer to God we get we can realise that He could have created in 6 milliseconds and not bothered to rest on the 7th but He chose to create in 6 days and to rest on the 7th. Lets just pray for Dan and that God gives him good voice and confidence like his namesake the prophet Daniel.
Chris L.
What is it about Darwin’s belief system that causes some to stumble into the mire of ill-informed comment and intolerance towards others because of their beliefs? Jesus said; "If you're not for me you're against me". It would appear these people are misled by the opposition!
L. K.
In a way this article encourages me as I realise we are not on our own in feeling rejected and ostracised. Having just come from a Minister's Fraternal meeting where we had been asked by the Chairman (a Minister) to present Creation Ministries with a view to providing a CMI Speaker at a Combined Churches Service. We were however cut short by one Minister who said he didn't agree with '6 day creation', which we hadn't actually mentioned, as we were talking more about CMI restoring trust in the Word of God and the conflict between Evolution and Creation.

He asked us did we believe in 6 day Creation and then ridiculed that belief and took offence on behalf of all present saying he wanted us to go. He didn't want to discuss his arguments, just said he didn't believe in Evolution or 6 day Creation, just that God did it, he didn't know how! He didn't want to hear any more from us...2 others also had questions about Creationism but no-one was allowed to pursue the meeting...'too divisive!'. It felt like WW3 was about to break out. We weren't exactly surprised but we didn't get a chance to finish presenting our case, we had already been judged and dismissed. We felt really bad for the Chairman after we left but we will still pray for them and not give up.
Hans I.
Every mention of creation causes an itching in the evolutionists or atheists. Why is it so? Is it an evolutionary hangover to feel uncomfortable when caught out telling fibs?
Michael E.
The BBC has long been the Bible Bashing Collective. They have such a bias to secular humanism and socialist thought that any Judeo-Christian belief system is fair game to them. Once again the media (and academia) deny freedom of speech, promote intolerance to any dissenting voice and actively pursue workplace bullying to drive Dan Walker out of the job he earned. They proceed with undergrad ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, misrepresentations and no research.

Significantly they have no physical or logical evidence for the position that they attempt to represent. They can't even debate. Maybe the BBC should have leading published Creationist Scientists debate leading published Evolutionist Scientists. Usually they will only put up someone who has never put in the scientific rigour to defend the Biblical Creationist viewpoint. They seek a 'weak' opponent to mock rather than seek the strongest to wrestle intellectually.
Dean R.
No surprises there though. The organised intolerant tolerance. And yet secular interpretation regarding religion & Christianity programs are continually presented...Hypocrisy. Atheism & hallowed ground, the only game in town apparently. No critical thinking allowed.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.