This article is from
Creation 46(2):6, April 2024

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Social sophistry

CMI’s social media videos reaching millions



© Prostockstudio | Dreamstime.com © Muladhara | Dreamstime.comsocial-sophistry

As I write this, the Social Media Video Project of Creation Ministries International approaches 30 million views on social media (Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, X, and Instagram). In embarking on this project, we were hoping to reach a lot more young people, and that is happening. This project involves producing short videos (less than a minute) on various topics, which then inspire viewers to access a longer one with more information.

Engaging with people on social media, I am often appalled at the ignorance and sophistry evident in comments.

Many of the ‘gotcha’ questions are answered on creation.com, if only the questioner would look. And then, often when you direct the person to the answer, they won’t read it, dismissing it with derision, asserting that they believe in ‘science’ or that ‘science’ says something different. This sort of response involves the fallacies of ‘No true Scotsman’, as well as ‘reification’ (see pp. 52–53 in this issue).

One wonders—why would a person even be commenting in the ‘creation science’ channel/group if they are not interested in engaging with biblical creation? Perhaps some feel their ego stroked by browbeating others.

Social media can be quite narcissistic; there is a certain thrill in getting ‘likes’ on your post. But for all those who comment, there are a lot of ‘lookers’ and many of them do look at the linked articles and videos. That is the larger audience, and many are being reached, as the Feedback in this issue indicates (p. 5).

Indeed, on YouTube, for example, one video had lots of negative comments and yet 98% ‘liked’ it (thumbs up icon). We mustn’t be discouraged by the loud ‘anti’ brigade. Even the nasty comments show that the videos are hitting the mark—challenging unbelief. But it is important that believers only use robust arguments so that we allow no easy escape hatches (pp. 36–38).

We need to address unbelief in the church as well, as does our article on Bishop Colenso. He is one of all too many examples of just how devastating it is to the Christian faith when church leaders capitulate to evolutionary thinking (pp. 49–51). When such church leaders undermine the Old Testament, they also destroy the foundations of the Gospel that is fully revealed in the New Testament (pp. 39–41).

If only the wavering church leaders would read Creation magazine! They would find lots of evidence that backs up a plain reading of Scripture in Genesis. They would also often be introduced to qualified scientists who are confident in the truth of the Genesis account, such as on pp. 18–21.

The design in living things ‘shouts’ that God, not ‘Nature’, created them, such as in raccoons (pp. 28–31), the amazing nanoscale motors inside cells (pp. 46–48), and even spiders (pp. 12–13).

Articles in this issue also affirm the true history in Genesis, including the timeframe and the Flood. Some imagine a local flood or a tranquil flood, but the worldwide evidence of rapid fossil formation affirms a catastrophic global flood (pp. 42–45). Very high-speed water currents while the Flood covered the earth would carve away even hard rock—as discussed in the special children’s article (pp. 32–35). And then there are puzzling, fossilized footprints that the sequence of burial during the Flood can explain (p. 56).

And there’s more, including articles on eclipses (pp. 22–26), dinosaurs (pp. 14–17), and supposed ‘apemen’ (pp. 54–55).

Is there someone, especially a church leader, you can share Creation magazine with? That could be the beginning of something good!

Posted on homepage: 12 February 2024

Helpful Resources