The media spin on the creationists
A response to The creationist spin on our origins by the Toronto Star
Published: 14 November 2007 (GMT+10)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.