New York Times—Not Just Against Creation, but Against Christianity

by on

On June 7, an editorial appeared in the New York Times entitled “The Cons of Creationism.” I have reprinted the editorial below with some comments. It is important to understand that those who blast creationism, as this New York Times editorial does, are not just against people believing in a literal Genesis account of origins—they are against the very first verse of the Bible—and if that verse is not true, none of the Bible is true. If “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth,” is false—so is the Christian faith.

The New York Times Editorial:

The Cons of Creationism

Published: June 7, 2008

When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old.

Creationists certainly believe in natural selection and speciation—this involves observational science. We have been able to observe natural selection and different species forming. Often, secular scientists refer to natural selection and speciation as “evolution”—but it is only “evolution” in the strict sense of the meaning of the word— that is, “change.” However, it has nothing to do with “molecules to man” evolution. Natural selection only occurs within a kind and within limits. There is no mechanism to change one kind of animal into another. Horses remain horses; dogs remain dogs—lots of species within the dog and horse kinds—but the boundaries of each kind are obvious.
They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology—or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view—are not being disadvantaged.
 The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.
It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.
So is this editorial saying that anyone who believes in six literal days of creation and a global Flood is believing nonsense? Actually, this editorial is saying much more—the editorial is actually saying if you (like the majority of Americans) believe that God created (regardless of whether you take Genesis literally as one should), you believe nonsense! Read on to see that this is so.
The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”
By comparing “creationist” to “naturalist,” he is really stating the two starting points to understand reality—God’s Word versus Autonomous Human Reason—or, Revelation vs Rationalism. Now read on.
The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith.
It is true that there has to be a faith aspect, as no human being has always been there and no human being knows everything. However, those who believe that life arose by random processes have to have faith—but it is actually a blind faith, as there is no mechanism for this to happen; no one can show it happens regardless of all the outlandish theories they have. However, those who believe God created don’t have a blind faith—it is a faith confirmed by observational science. The study of biochemistry, for example, confirms that DNA, the language of life, could only arise from an intelligence.
All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.
Now this is the crux of the issue. The secularists (including this NYT editorial writer) have defined science as “naturalism.” In other words, they have defined science as explaining things only by natural processes. Now, who decided that was the definition of science? Well, those like the person(s) who wrote the NYT editorial who don’t believe there is any supernatural involved. Thus, they reject the notion of God being involved in the formation of the universe and life and have decided that the only possible way to look at the evidence in regard to origins is to explain it all by natural processes. This is the religion of naturalism—or atheism. And it is the religion of most of the education systems (including the public school system).

Even if they say you can believe in God, God must be limited to religion—then understand what they are saying. If God can have nothing to do with the origin of anything in the universe, then they have just eliminated the God of the Bible—the Christian God—because the God of the Bible is the Creator of all things! What these people are doing is, in effect, saying that anyone who believes God had anything to do with anything at all in the universe believes nonsense! Understand, even for those Christians who inconsistently hold to evolution and millions of  years, these secularists still call what they believe nonsense because such people say God was involved in evolution/millions of years etc.

Christians in America need to wake up to the fact that these people want to outlaw or otherwise undermine the Christian faith—no matter what you believe about the details of Genesis.

Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.
I challenge the New York Times to come up with just one example of how the teaching of evolution has advanced technology in any way.  And don’t give the example of bacterial and viral resistance—this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, as a number of articles on AiG’s website outline.
Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.
In other words, “science” as the secularists define it (naturalism) is what should only be allowed in classrooms—they have not eliminated religion—they have replaced the religion of Christianity with the religion of atheism!!

The editorial is at this web address:


From time to time, I like to include photographs of some of the groups who visit the Creation Museum. On Saturday, a group from Oneida Baptist Institute in Kentucky visited, and I have included their photograph.


Well, Mally and I arrived home from West Virginia around midnight last night after speaking four times on Sunday. As usual, I received many testimonies from people—however, it was most thrilling to have so many tell me they have already visited the Creation Museum and intend on coming back and bringing friends. Many told me they have purchased museum memberships.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying.


Ken Ham’s Daily Email

Email me with Ken’s daily email:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390