It seems like no matter how many times we set the record straight, the media is determined to misrepresent us. Well, Paul Farrell, a columnist writing for Market Watch has recently written a diatribe against creationists (among others), and he makes several false, but common, claims that we have addressed many times.
Mindless Robots or PhD Scientists?He begins by bringing up climate change and says that those who deny climate change are “mindless robots at odds with over 2,500 scientists who now warn, after more than two decades of research, that they are 97% ‘certain humans are causing climate change, that the damage is accelerating 10 times faster than the past 65 million years and soon we will self-destruct our civilization and disappear like dinosaurs, forever.’” Now, we’ve said many times before that we do not deny climate change. What we do deny are the worldview based, old-earth assumptions behind the radical claims of climate change alarmists. Because we start with an utterly different view of Earth’s history, we come to completely different conclusions about the reasons and severity of climate change. And many scientists, creationist or otherwise, also have problems with the popular interpretation of the limited climate change data. What Farrell doesn’t mention are the 9,000 PhD scientists who do not think that climate change is the result of human activity or that it is a crisis.
Farrell also mentions Bill Nye “the Science Guy” as fighting for science in the face of a nation full of “science deniers.” Now we’ve also addressed the claim that we are science deniers many times before. Creationists do not deny science—we love science! Many of the greatest scientists of all time, like Newton, Bacon, or Kepler, were creationists. What we deny are man’s fallible ideas about the past. You see, there are two different kinds of science. Observational science deals with the present and is directly observable, repeatable, and testable. It’s what builds our technology, makes engineering revolutions, and develops medical innovations. The other kind of science, historical science, deals with the past—origins. It is not directly testable, observable, or repeatable. How you interpret the evidence of the present in relation to the past, will be determined by your starting point. That’s why creationists and evolutionists reach such different conclusions when they examine the same evidence—we have different starting points!
Creationists Teach Children to Think CriticallyHe also writes, “Nye’s ‘biggest concern is about creationist kids’ whose parents are science deniers. ‘They’re compelled to suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical-thinking skills . . . ’” I addressed this erroneous claim in a blog I wrote recently:
But, really, is teaching children only one side of the debate (as Nye wants)—silencing the opposition and not even discussing the inherent problems with evolution—really teaching kids to “question things,” “think critically,” or to use “skeptical thought”? No, it’s not! It’s teaching children to accept what’s popular and not even consider other options. This is not critical thinking. This undermines true education. And it will ultimately undermine science education and technology in our culture.Secularists like Nye are bemoaning the low science scores of students in America, and they try to put a lot of the blame on the teaching of creation! But students have by and large been taught evolution as fact in our schools. Teachers have for the most part not been allowed to teach students about creation, and most textbooks have presented evolution as fact for many, many years! It’s not the teaching of creation that is resulting in poor science scores.
Be Bold and Stand for TruthDuring his article Farrell also mocks the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter (interestingly he doesn’t even get the name of the Creation Museum right—he calls it the “Creationist Museum”) and encourages people to check out an equally mocking article about our many dinosaur exhibits. He then makes this odd claim: “Other reviews [of the Creation Museum] point out that while carbon dating proves that dinosaurs went instinct [sic] 65 million years ago, creationists simply dismiss that bit of science.” Well, even those who accept carbon-14 dating as reliable would not agree with this statement! Carbon dating can only date things to a maximum age of a few tens of thousands of years—definitely not millions! This is because the half-life of carbon-14 is very short (5730 years). Any evolutionist who understands carbon dating will verify this. But, here is an important point many people don’t know about carbon-14. If certain fossils really are 65 million years old, there shouldn’t be detectable amounts of carbon-14 in them, and yet we do find carbon-14 in such supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. Carbon-14 dating confirms a biblical interpretation of fossils, not an evolutionary one. Farrell obviously has no clue about carbon dating and thus makes a false statement showing his ignorance, yet thinking this puts down creationists! This just goes to illustrate their anti-creationist/anti-Christian agenda.
Sadly, the media continues to mock us by spreading false information about creationists and the nature of the debate. And articles like Farrell’s certainly show that secularists hate us. But this is to be expected because this is a spiritual battle. People like Farrell are suppressing the truth that they know because of their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). We need to remember to pray for those who refuse to acknowledge their Creator and we need to be bold in standing for the truth of God’s Word, from the very beginning, and sharing it with others.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.