Conservative Columnist George Will Misrepresents Creationists/Christians

by on

Sometimes I wonder whether writers (such as politically conservative columnist George Will referred to below—a Pulitzer prize winner, by the way) just haven’t researched carefully, are just willfully ignorant, or deliberately misrepresent what creationists/Christians believe. If columnist George Will had only conducted a superficial search on the Answers in Genesis website (the largest creation apologetic site in the world) or other well-trafficked creation sites, he surely would not have stated some of the inaccurate things he did in a recent commentary—or would he?

I have selected out just a few of the many misrepresentations in a recent column  entitled, “Can Darwin Be Applied To Policy?” that he wrote to illustrate what I am saying. I have taken excerpts from his piece  (you can read the article at the link given at the end) and commented on them:

“Descended from the apes!” exclaimed the wife of the bishop of Worcester. “Let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.”
An American majority resists such an annoying notion, endorsing the proposition that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.” Still, evolution is a fact and its mechanism is natural selection: Creatures with variations especially suited to their environmental situation have more descendants than do less well-adapted creatures.
I’m not exactly sure what he means by “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years,” but it sure gives the wrong impression! However, the truth is God created the first two people, Adam and Eve, about 6,000 years ago. All the different people groups we see today with their distinct characteristics (e.g.,  groups such as Native American, Australian Aborigines, Eskimos, etc.) and characteristics, such as eye shape, skin shade (light through to dark), developed after the event of the Tower of Babel when the human gene pool was divided because of being given different languages. So, God did not create “human beings pretty much in their present form at one time.” God created the human kind starting with only two people who had great genetic potential.

And Darwinian evolution, molecules to man by natural processes is not fact—it is a belief!

Unlike Lincoln, Darwin still disturbs humanity's peace of mind. Some people flinch from the idea of natural selection, aka “survival of the fittest,” because it suggests Lord Tennyson’s “nature, red in tooth and claw.” But Darwin, in the last paragraph of “The Origin of Species,” saw beauty:”
Biblical creationists don’t flinch at all “from the idea of natural selection, aka ‘survival of the fittest,’” because it suggests Lord Tennyson’s “nature, red in tooth and claw.” Many times I have stated on this blog that these evolutionists (like George Will) need to go to AiG’s website to read the many articles on natural selection. Creationists certainly believe in natural selection. And yes, Mr. Will, nature is “red in tooth and claw” as Tennyson described, because we live in a fallen world—affected by sin and the curse.  And yes, as Darwin saw, there is also beauty. This world was once all beautiful, but now, because of sin, there is beauty and ugliness, life and death, health and disease. Romans 8:22 describes the world since the fall of Adam as “groaning.”
Still, many people of faith find Darwinism compatible with theism: God, they say, initiated and directs the dynamic that Darwin described.
Yes, there are many church leaders, many Christians and others who “find Darwinism compatible with theism.” But which god are they talking about directed this process? Darwinism is not compatible with a straightforward reading of Genesis (and remember, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and many others quoted from Genesis as literal history—to be taken in a straightforward way).

Actually, those who say Darwinism is compatible with believing in God are saying the Bible in Genesis is incorrect!

Ed Yoder, a learned and sometimes whimsical columnist, noted that it was under Tennessee’s “monkey law” that John Scopes was tried in 1925 for teaching biology in a way considered incompatible with “Genesis.” While not equating Tennessee's law with “a measure so enlightened” as the 1973 act, Yoder noted:
“Both measures involve legislative interposition in the realm of biological change; and which will have involved the greater hubris is yet to be seen. Tennessee’s ambitions were comparatively modest. It sought only to conceal the disturbing evidence of natural selection from impressionable school children. The Congress of the United States, one is intrigued to learn, intends to stop the nasty business in its tracks.”
Well, Mr. Will, you need to do some real research—do some homework and don’t simply depend on hearsay. The Butler Act was what the Scopes trial centered on, and it had nothing to do with not teaching natural selection. It only had to do with not allowing the evolution of humanity from animals to be taught. This is the actual wording of the Butler Act:
[This Act declared that it shall be] unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of the state which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
In other words, evolution was allowed to be taught in the state’s schools, but not human evolution. Sadly, the public are continually misinformed by journalists in newspapers, TV studios, on radio, in magazines, etc. around the world. Make sure you check out things that you read concerning creation/evolution, including everything we write.

And Mr. Will , you can insist on what people call “conservative values”—but without an absolute authority (the God of the Bible), it is all just human opinion!

You can read the entire column by columnist George Will here.


What shall I do then?
(Matthew 27:22) Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
(John 1:36) And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

“What shall I do then with Jesus?” is the question that determines eternal destiny–while some cry crucify Him–we cry that we will worship, honor, and serve Him.

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