New Scientist Needs a New Scientist!

by on
Share:

It’s sad but common with many secularists today not to conduct careful research when writing about Christians/creationists, but instead to write emotionally laden, anti-biblical, agenda-driven articles such as the New Scientist item titled “School Field Trips to Creationist Ark? Sink That Idea Right Now.”

The article was written by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau, programs and policy director of the US National Center for Science Education.

In this article, it is clear that he was not interested in conducting careful research, as one would normally expect from a scientist. Instead, I don’t believe he had any intention of accurately portraying the content of the Ark Encounter exhibits.

For instance:

  1. He accuses the Ark Encounter exhibits of supposedly promoting the “obliteration of all humans” as “praiseworthy.” I challenge this evolutionist to actually document this claim—which he can’t since it’s a false claim. No! This was a tragic event as a holy God metered out righteous judgment against wicked people.

  2. His suggestion that “disappointing visitor numbers” may be why Ark Encounter recently offered public schools to bring their students for $1 each is easily shown to be another false claim because of lack of careful research. The author links to an article on the Answers in Genesis website, which itself links to the original article about the $1 public school offer on the Answers in Genesis website. This article clearly shows the $1 per student offer was in response to bullying by the Freedom From Religion Foundation to try to stop public schools from taking students to the Ark Encounter. Read the original article about this offer.

    It should also be noted that the author’s claim that “publicly-funded schools certainly should not take their charges to the park” is totally incorrect. As attorneys for the Center For Religious Expression stated to me:

    Once again, FFRF is wrong. Public schools are free to take students on field trips to any place they find educationally beneficial, which can include parks, museums, and even churches, that have religious connotations. The Constitution demands the state be neutral—not hostile—toward religion. To deny students the unique opportunity to see and experience a full-scale model of Noah’s Ark—just because its existence is described in the Bible—would be decidedly hostile.
  3. The author is wrong when he insinuates visitor numbers at the Ark are “disappointing.” The attendance at both the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are outstanding and way ahead of minimum projections—the author of the New Scientist article has no figures to back his totally false claim about supposed “disappointing visitor numbers.”

  4. Under the heading “Flood of Misinformation” in the New Scientist article, we read:

    What’s more, everything in the park is designed to promote scientifically impossible ideas that contradict everything that scientists know.

    This statement is easily proved to be false. Certainly someone like this author, who does not agree with the creationist position, won’t agree with many statements on signage or in videos at the Ark Encounter. However, there is a lot of basic scientific information that everyone agrees on regardless of whether one is a creationist or evolutionist.

The “Flood of misinformation” is in the New Scientist’s anti-biblical agenda-driven article, not in the Ark Encounter exhibits. Yes, New Scientist needs a new scientist to do careful research before writing articles about the Ark Encounter!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

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