Examining the Claudia Wallis Sunday, Aug. 07, 2005 Time Magazine article
By Danzil Monk
Every year “Time” and other major magazines like “News Week” make it their business to feature at least two or three major articles attacking Christianity and the Christian worldview, or at the least distorting the truth in what can only be describes as an evangelistic like crusade to convince the public that there is no intelligent reason to believe the Bible or any of the major tenants of the Christian faith.
In spite of the many well established evidences published and that substantiate the credibility of Christianity, they are driven to counter those facts by any means necessary, which as you will see by this exposé of the Claudia Wallis article, often involves out right deception by misinformation and even false information, and an interesting tendency to avoid accountability when questioned about their comments and bias.
What makes this exposé most interesting is the fact that I was able to actually talk with Miss Wallis by phone not long after her article had been published. Our dialog was quite revealing, as you will see. I have included our talk word-for-word at the end of this exposé. You can be the judge as to what is really going on.
It is important for you to know before reading this; that Miss Wallis informed me that this article was not written as an opinion piece. But as you will see her opinion comes through loud and clear.
Due to copyright boundaries I cannot reproduce the entire article however it is available through Time Magazine. I will be commenting on key points in her article that I feel need to be addressed. Her quotations in red text will precede my comments.
Let’s begin around her fourth paragraph where she states:
“Darwin's venerable theory is widely regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science, the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence.”
This statement is carefully worded and could easily be mistaken for a confirmation of truth. But note the words “widely regarded as”, this does not mean established fact, because something is “widely regarded” does not make it true. Notice also what follows, “as one of the best..” indicating that there is substantial evidence.
When you make claims such as this and add statements like “the only explanation” and “grounded in decades of study and objective evidence”, you give the impression that it is a settled fact. That seems to be the writer’s intent and it is a common tactic of evolutionists. But if a view is wrong, how widely it is accepted is irrelevant. The truth is that evolution is not based on “objective evidence”. It is a scam, a hoax and the average person who relies on public education and the media to inform them about this issue has been intentionally misled.
Later in the article she mentions “Biologists” objections to giving Intelligent Design (I.D.) equal time with evolution because to them it smacks of faith based science and is a distraction from US scientific progress. She includes a quote from Garry Wheeler. Here is the comment:
“It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue," warned Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the 55,000-member National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va. "If I were China, I'd be happy." (Emphasis mine)
Notice what is happening here, I.D. is trivialised and alarm is sounded against wasting time with it, as if it is the problem.
Minimising the importance and relevance of the Creationist/I.D. position is also a common tactic of evolutionists. Since they know that they cannot defend evolution, they try to avoid the necessity of doing so by questioning the “scientific-ness” of I.D. and creation science. There is also the hint of the common “alarm” tactic that sounds the alarm of warning that to doubt evolution in favore of I.D. would doom our progress in scientific research and discovery. This tactic is only effective on those who are not aware of the history of science and the fact that evolution has not and does not contributed much to the advancement of science. She later states:
“The intelligent-design movement is just the latest and most sophisticated attempt to discredit the famous theory, which many Americans believe leaves insufficient room for the influence of God. Early efforts to thwart Darwin were pretty crude.”
It is difficult to know whom she is referring to as “Americans” here, especially when she adds that they believe that evolution “leaves insufficient room for the influence of God”.
The “Americans” she is referring to here could be Atheists, which make up a very small percentage of America, but who believe there is no room for God in evolution. So she may have carefully words this to give the impression that a large percentage of Americans reject the idea of God.
On the other hand, there are many Americans who are Creationists and Intelligent Design defenders who also reject evolution because it “leaves insufficient room for the influence of God”.
Notice also that she does not give one example of a crude early effort to thwart Darwin. While there no doubt were crude attempts, there were also very intelligent objections voiced, and from the “science” community. She neglects to mention that it was the scientifically bankrupt religious community that gave Darwin his greatest support, and that was out of a fear of being considered ignorant on matters of science by the public. However, the majority of the scientists of Darwin’s day readily saw the flaws of his opinions and openly rejected them.
Notice how she handles the next point, she mentions the former laws that she says “banned” evolution teaching, which they did not do, only certain aspects of evolution such as teaching that man had evolved from the monkeys or apes was banned. Then she makes this miss leading comment:
“When such laws were struck down by a Supreme Court decision in 1968, some states shifted gears and instead required that "creation science" be taught alongside evolution. Supreme Court rulings in 1982 and 1987 put an end to that. Offering creationism in public schools, even as a side dish to evolution, the high court held, violated the First Amendment's separation of church and state.”
Here she seems to makes no attempt to honestly state the facts but rather is trying to give the impression that the “Supreme Court” fairly and correctly ruled to outlaw creationism in schools. But she is wrong on both points. First, the ruling did not prohibit creationism from being taught in public schools, only the forced or required teaching of creationism. Secondly, although they did indicate that requiring creationism to be taught in school would violate the First Amendment, that was a bogus claim since the First Amendment says nothing that could be construed as keeping the church separated from the state.
Appealing to past court victories as evidence that I.D. and Creation Science are not really science is another common tactic of evolutionists, and an effective one when their target audience is not aware of the facts regarding the trials and verdicts, especially when they have the bias media propagating the misinformation to the masses on their behalf. But the courts did not at that time ban the teaching of creation science or I.D. as was falsely reported in the media, they only prohibited the required teaching on those topics.
But notice that there is no mention made of the unfounded premise upon which they were based or the bias involved in the decisions. This information is available through the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis and others.
It is a known fact that the “Separation of Church and State” argument is bogus. It is neither in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. In fact it is a misapplication of a comment made by a former US President that was intentionally spun to give the impression that religion (mainly Christianity), and government should be kept separated. The lie has been repeated so often that the American public has generally accepted it as truth.
Next, after quoting Eugene Scott and promoting her anti-creationist organisation (NCSE) she states”
“Since the 1987 decision, a devoted band of mostly religious Christians, including hundreds of scientists, engineers, theologians and philosophers, has written papers and books, contributed to symposiums on the perceived problems with Darwin's theory.” (Emphasis mine)
Her bias seems to be clear here. First it is “thousands” not “hundreds” of scientists and other educators who reject Darwinism. Also, note the words “perceived problems”.
She does not say “the problems with Darwin’s theory”. By using the word “Perceived” she indicates that it is not an actual problem but only perceived by some to be so. But the fact is that even stanch evolutionist-Darwinist acknowledges that there are problems with evolution.
This paragraph is also interesting because she admits that I.D. proponents and creationists do right papers. These are not just articles in Christian publications, these “papers” are also scientific papers that are rejected by most secular scientific journals if they know that the writer is a Creationist or a proponent of I.D. But every now and then a few slip by their gatekeepers and get into their major science publications. Additionally many creationist and I.D. papers have been published in their secular science publications that did not have a bearing on I.D. or Creation issues, and therefore did not identify them as Creationist or I.D. advocates. These papers are well accepted.
Keep this in mind because she will later quote a common argument by evolutionists that Creationist Scientists and I.D. Scientists don’t write for Peer Reviews.
Next she brings attention to the Discovery Institute, carefully making mention that it is a “conservative” organisation and incorrectly dubbing it as the headquarters for anti-Darwin thinking. But since they do not generally-publicly acknowledge who the designer is, and there are many other creationist organisations fighting to expose the errors and lies of Darwinism, they can hardly be dubbed as the headquarters for anti-Darwinism.
While is true that they have been relentless in their struggle to expose the lies of evolutionists and the bias in media, academic institutions, public schools and the government against anti-Darwin teaching, making them without a doubt a major headquarters for anti-Darwinian thinking, they stop at the point where science meets the God who makes it work, that is, acknowledging God as the Designer. This is intentional and I would argue necessary. We need someone out here covering the secular arena with purely scientific answers that drive them in the direction that can only lead to God. I commend and respect their work and commitment to exposing and refuting the lie of evolution to the extent that they do. At any rate she goes on the say:
“What exactly is their critique of Darwin? Much of it revolves around the appealing idea that living things are simply too exquisitely complex to have evolved by a combination of chance mutations and natural selection. The dean of that school of thought is Lehigh University biologist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Michael Behe, author of the 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, a seminal work on intelligent design.”
Notice that Michael Behe is set forth as the best we have to offer by evolutionists, not because he is, but because he accepts Old Earth Darwinian evolution as compatible with creation and thus makes for a less formidable opponent than the top anti-Darwinian young earth Creationist (YEC) Scientists. Without a doubt his book “Darwin’s Black Box” has been shaking up the world of Darwinists and has as a result made him a favoriate target of evolutionists.
Creationists while greatly appreciating Behe’s contribution to the battle against evolution are careful to point out that he does not represent the best of anti-evolution champions, in fact that title would be difficult to grant to anyone being that there are so many creationists who are doing an amazing job countering and exposing evolution.
However, evolutionists constantly present Behe and other theistic evolutionist, as the best anti-Darwinist has to offer. They seem to prefer to ignore the existence of young earth Creation Science organisation as much as possible, mainly because they are a bigger threat to evolution and the sociological agenda being pushed in our government and schools. Why, because they not only are willing to identify God as the designer, but they also scientifically reject the Darwinian calms about the age of the earth and universe. You see, Darwinist depend on the old earth/universe paradigm to give their lies about evolution the appearance of plausibility, without it even their stories clearly make no since, and they know it. for this reason, young earth creationism presents the greater threat to Darwinism. None of the many well known young earth creationist scientists were featured in this article.
Notice how she describes Behe’s writing giving another indication of her bias:
“Although his writing is couched in the language of science, Behe, a practicing Catholic who home schools his nine children, believes the hand of the designer is self-evident.”
The author describes Behe’s work as “couched in the language of science”, (meaning that in her opinion, it’s not really science). Also, why does she feel the need to disclose Behe’s religion and method of his children schooling? When neither is given of any of the anti-I.D. people who are mentioned in her article? It is a tactic to suggest that his views are simply religious and not science. The fact that evolution is based on the religious view of atheism, will not be mentioned, nor will she make note of the religion of any evolutionist whom she quotes, including atheist professor Richard Dawkins.
She conveniently neglects to mention that Mr. Dawkins is a radical evolutionist, and in fact, he is an open atheist who is notoriously hostile towards non atheists religions.
She goes on the say:
“In contrast to earlier opponents to Darwin, many proponents of intelligent design accept some role for evolution”--
This is quite true, as I mentioned earlier and Miss Wallis is careful to use such people in her quotes instead of young earth creation scientists, a point that I made to her during our conversation. As you will notice when you check, nearly every scientist or I. D. proponent that is pitted against evolutionists in the press or in the media are theistic evolutionists. Young earth creation scientists these days are not given the opportunity to present their case in a public forum, as old earth creationists are. And the reason is because their message is more dangerous to evolution, they don’t borrow any false theories from evolution and they are not unwilling, afraid or ashamed to acknowledge God in their equations. These facts makes them a much greater threat to the current anti-Christian element in government, media, colleges and schools.
She then makes another misleading comment:
“by working at the state level, intelligent-design advocates can largely avoid dealing with unpolished local activists who make rash religious statements that don't hold up in court.”
What she calls “rash religious statements” is not rash at all. But to someone like Miss Wallis who has obviously been willingly mis-educated about our countries Christian heritage, it is understandable how she can say such things. What are those rash religious statements? She explains:
“(Supporters of the Darwin disclaimer in Dover, Pa., have publicly proclaimed the country a Christian nation, a point cited in an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit.)”
Setting aside the well known history of the atheistic, anti-Christian A.C.L.U., the only reason she makes mention of this is to again enforce the misleading view that I.D. is religion and not science. It is also obvious that she does not believe that our country was founded as a Christian nation. While there is indeed dispute among Christians as to just how “Christian” our founders were, there is no question that Christianity of some sort, was the dominant religion of our founders.
The Wallbuilders organisation has done an amazing job 8establishing this fact.
She then mentions Connie Morris referring to her as a “conservative”, again something she never does with evolutionists that she quotes in her article who are usually liberals or leftists. Notice how she describes Connie Morris’s work:
“In Kansas, conservative members of the state school board, like Connie Morris, who represents the sparsely populated western half of Kansas, have repeatedly injected scientifically abstruse, jargon-heavy documents from the Discovery Institute into the debate about teaching evolution, making the discussion tough for the average citizen to follow.”
Notice how it is described “scientifically abstruse” or hard to comprehend and “Jargon-heavy”. Why isn’t any evolution argument described this way?
The truth is, if anyone is guilty of injecting scientifically abstruse jargon-heavy documents into the discussion it’s the evolutionists. This has been the case from the inception of “Darwinian evolution science”.
In a following paragraph she refers to Connie Morris and those who reject evolution as “Darwin Doubters”, this is another indication of her bias “opinion”, and it is a spin on the actual position of I.D. proponents, and especially creation science. We don’t doubt Darwin- we reject him. Very little of what Darwin is famous for is competent science and very little of it was original. Darwin did not come up with the vast majority of it first, so why is he so revered by the evolutionists and atheists? Because he supposedly simplified the theory, giving “plausible” answers as to how it may have happened. The problem is that his ideas were not plausible. But in addition to wanting to free themselves from rampant corrupt religion, people were so desperate to get away from the guilt of their own sins without sacrificing their “freedom” to live immorally without conviction, that they were willing to settle for his flawed theories. It gave the illusion of an intelligent argument for evolution and against God.
It is also interesting that she chooses people like Connie Morris who openly admits that she relies on “Research and expert documentation” yet claim to believe the Bible is correct about creation. Here is the quote:
"Personally, I believe in the Genesis account of God's creation," says Morris. "But as a policymaker looking at science standards, I rely mostly on research and expert documentation."
The problem is that usually the “Research and expert documentation” that they are exposed to is the standard propaganda of evolutionists, a propaganda that pushes an old earth and universe. A view that is incompatible with the Genesis account of God’s creation that she claims to believe in.
Young earth creationist scientists also believe in and rely on research and expert documentation, as anyone who was honest and fair would know if they examined the available material of organisations like, Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Today, and other leading young earth creationists organisations.
Notice that she also uses Rick Santorum, who publicly states that he does not believe I.D. is developed enough to teach as a science. She also is careful to identify his politics as a “Religious Right”, again, something she does not do when she quotes evolutionists. Here is the quote:
"Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a leading voice on the religious right, seemed to be reading from the same script. "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes in the theory of evolution," he said in an interview with National Public Radio a few days after Bush made his comments. Santorum also said: "As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution.”
So now it seems that even the religious right doesn’t think I.D. is up to par with Evolution. Senator Rick Santorum did not represent the most informed I.D. proponents, and he certainly did not represent YEC’s. There is more than enough information available on I.D. to develop a curriculum from. Any authority on I.D. should know that, though admittedly some seem to falter on this point. This however is another effective tactic that evolutionists use in the public eye, site as many of the less credible I.D. proponents and ideas as possible to make I.D. seem out matched by evolution.
There is clearly a pattern here, she carefully selects people and quotes them to tip the scale in favor of the evolution argument. This is again seen in her next chosen quote from Edward Peltzer:
“Even scientists who believe in intelligent design do not feel it is ready for prime time. Many would prefer to move forward gradually, building their case, in order to avoid a backlash. "It's premature for all kinds of reasons," says oceanographer Edward Peltzer, a senior researcher at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. "The science is there, but the science textbooks are not. The teachers have to be trained. Its time will come. But its time is not now.”
And how long does it take to write the books and train the teachers, 20 years? How much longer do we have to wait? Peltzer is not thinking clearly on this point. The lies of Darwinian evolution has been taught in our schools for far too many years in exclusion of I.D. and creation science for us to keep waiting for “it’s time to come”, the time has always been now to replace it with real science.
To her credit she does include an important comment by David Keller although she is careful not to allow any elaboration. She say:
“Many advocates of intelligent design complain that Darwinism has become a kind of faith in itself. "There's religion on both sides," insists David Keller, a chemistry professor at the University of New Mexico, who taught a seminar on problems with evolution at an anti-Darwin forum in Greenville, S.C., last week.”
This is true; the religious nature of Darwinian evolution has been well documented by such people as Gary Demar in his message “The Religion of Evolution”. But this point is rarely mentioned or discussed.
In the next section of her article titled, “Biologist Ask, What Holes?”, she give Atheist Richard Dawkins a platform to spout his well known rhetoric without ever making note of his religious convictions:
“Many scientists have been reluctant to engage in a debate with advocates of intelligent design because to do so would legitimize the claim that there's a meaningful debate about evolution. "I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific argument going on. There's not," says noted British biologist Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University”
This is another of their tactics. Evolutionists really don’t want to defend their fake “science”, they simply want us to accept it. They know that they have no real evidence to defend it with, and so to avoid as much as possible any public dialog with knowledgeable creationist or I.D. Scientists, they use excuses like this to avoid the dialog.
At one time they were so arrogant that they thought that there was one who could refute their evolution teaching, and so they were taking on all who were willing to be publicly humiliated by them. But that was until they came face to face with real scientists and knowledgeable science teachers who were able to stand up to them on the scientific level and publicly challenge and exposed their fallacies, and embarrassed them in the public arena.
Who can for get the classic debates with Dr. Duane Gish and Dr. Henry Morris held around the nation. Evolutionist scientists were embarrassed by these and other YEC’s. They then suddenly decided that it was a waste of time to dialog with Creation Scientists. It was far better and easier to just label them as “non-scientific religionist” and bar them from pier reviews. They know full well that I.D. and Creationist scientists did bring real science to the table, but they deny that it is science to avoid the necessity of answering the arguments against their false Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution theory. Preferring to pick apart creationist's printed material in their own atheists publications where they have full control over what is presented to the public.
Just take a look at the public debates that are on record between leading pure Creationist scientists or knowledgeable science teachers and evolutionists and you will be able to see for yourself why they rarely want to debate any longer unless they can have control, or fine a poor example of a creationist to exploit.
She then quotes Dawkins making a common charge against Creationist and Intelligent Design advocates:
“He and other scientists say advocates of intelligent design do not play by the rules of science. “They do not publish papers in peer-reviewed journals, and their hypothesis cannot be tested by research and the study of evidence. Indeed, Behe concedes, "You can't prove intelligent design by an experiment.”
Now earlier she had acknowledged that I.D. scientists and creationist scientists did write papers, yet here she quotes Dawkins complaining that they don’t. And yet she makes no effort to correct it.
Of course the accusation is not true, they do write papers and they attempt to get them published in secular peer reviewed journals, but they have little success because secular “peer-reviewed journals” are censored to keep out unwanted I.D. and creationists defences. Those who are able to get through are targeted by Anti-creationists/I.D. executives for firing or demotion and other hostilities, as documented by the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” documentary and by Dr. Jerry Bergman’s books “The Slaughter of The Dissidents”, and “Silencing Darwin Skeptics”.
And with all due respect to Behe, his comment is not quite true either. It has been proven time and time again that life cannot be created without an intelligent designer.
And William Dembski in his book “The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities” does an exceptional job at stating the case for the probability of Intelligent Design. It is the evolution hypothesis that is proven wrong in such tests. So Intelligent Design can be demonstrated by scientific methods. In fact, just looking at the massive levels and types of specified complexity in living organisms on the genetic level is sufficient to prove ID.
She then quotes Dawkin’s straw man argument without allowing any counter argument.
“Dawkins compares the idea of teaching intelligent-design theory with teaching flat earthism-- perfectly fine in a history class but not in science. He says, "If you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science--one that says the earth is round and one that says the earth is flat--you are misleading children.”
This is the kind of argumentation that evolutionists give that clearly exposes just how bankrupt their theory is. For such evolutionary champions as Richard Dawkins to make ignorant comments like this, he has to be extremely limited in his ability to defend his position. Flat earthism and Intelligent Design have absolutely nothing in common. Belief in a flat earth has never been common among any but very small groups in history, and for Miss Wallis to give Richard Dawkins so much of her space to spout his weak arguments, speaks volume about her limited understanding and ability to defend evolutionists. She then states:
“Scientists say it is, in fact, easy to gainsay the intelligent-design folks. Take Behe's argument about complexity, for example. "Evolution by natural selection is a brilliant answer to the riddle of complexity because it is not a theory of chance," explains Dawkins. "It is a theory of gradual, incremental change over millions of years, which starts with something very simple and works up along slow, gradual gradients to greater complexity. Not only is it a brilliant solution to the riddle of complexity; it is the only solution that has ever been proposed.”
Again Miss Wallis reveals her ignorance of the science and her bias towards the indefensible evolution.
For Dawkins to call natural selection a brilliant answer to complexity is ridiculous, nothing in empirical science has ever demonstrated that natural selection has resulted in specified complex life, and the science community has know this for centuries.
And Dawkins lied when he said it is not a theory of “chance”, it certainly is, but what is amazing about this is that evolutionists would rather accept weak answers like this rather than the clear facts. To them anything is preferable to avoid the alternative, which is God. As atheist-evolutionists Dr. Richard Lewontin acknowledged in his now famous New York Times review “Billions and Billions of Demons”, in which he said, they “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”.
She continues with Dawkins:
“As for gaps in the fossil record, Dawkins says, that is like detectives complaining that they can't account for every minute of a crime--a very ancient one--based on what they found at the scene. "You have to make inferences from footprints and other types of evidence.”
This is silly and misleading, the complaints of I.D. and creationist scientists is not simply that evolutionists are missing some evidence, but that they are missing all of the evidence, (YECs) or most of the evidence (I.D), and that they are making up stories to fill in as proof for the most important evidence. And then they are making “inferences” not based on the visible evidence, but on their predetermined convictions of naturalism. Some evolutionists have openly admitted this, therefore such comments as this by Dawkins is simply a desperate attempt to confuse the issue and mislead the public about the integrity of evolution claims.
“As it happens, he notes, there is a huge amount of evidence of evolution not only in the fossil record but also in the letters of the genetic code shared in varying degrees by all species. "The pattern," says Dawkins, "is precisely what you would expect if evolution would happen”
Neither point is true, neither fossils nor the letters of the genetic code shared by all species say anything about Darwinian evolution. Creation scientists have so thoroughly refuted the “fossils are proof of evolution” arguments that some evolutionists have began to shy away from even referring to the fossils as proof of evolution. An example is M. Ridley’s statement in the New Science Magazine in 1981:
“The Evidence for evolution simply does not depend on the fossil record…In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
(M. Ridley, “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist 90, June 25, 1981, pp.830-831).
Honest evolutionists admit that with them it is all a matter of predetermined interpretation of the visible evidence. The visible evidence is reinterpreted to fit the un-provable evolution model. So when they look at the similar genetics shared by all species, they ignore the more reasonable possibility of a common designer and insist without any physical evidence that it must mean that we all came from a common ancestor. This is not science; it is religion, humanistic, atheistic religion. Yet in spite of these weak arguments to defend evolution she fails to question them or even mention other scientific arguments that refute it, and she continues to quote Dawkins:
“Dawkins insists that critics of Darwin are wrong to say that evolution has become an article of faith among scientists. He cites biologist J.B.S. Haldane who, when asked what would disprove evolution, replied, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era, a period more than 540 million years ago, when life on Earth seems to have consisted largely of bacteria, algae and plankton. "Creationists are fond of saying that there are very few fossils in the Precambrian, but why would there be?" asks Dawkins. "However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.”
This is the best that Dawkins can do? One of his own friends and prominent atheist evolutionist Dr. Michael Ruse has gone on record acknowledging that evolution is a religion. Although Ruse has other reasons for acknowledging evolution's religious nature, what else would you call a faith based doctrine that had no real evidence but is adamantly believed and defended and which claimed to be the answer to human existence?
And to repeat the Haldance answer of how evolution could be disproven is not only misleading, it is ridiculous. It is misleading because it gives the impression that evolution is an established fact, which it is not. Therefore, there is no need to disprove something that has not been proven. And it is ridiculous because Haldances’ comment presupposes that the fossils and so-called sedimentary layers are somehow proof for evolution, which they are not.
Evolution has already been blown out of the water; evolutionists just refuse to admit it because they dread the alternative, which is God. And finally, with all of the documented fossils that have been found out of place in strata that they should not be in, according to evolutionary claims, this has not “proven” evolution to be false in their minds. Nor have finding soft tissue and red blood cells and DNA in dinosaur bones discouraged them from their claim that dinosaurs are millions of years old. They just keep coming up with stories to excuse the contradiction. So Dawkins is again lying based on documented history.
I would like to skip through some of this material but these dishonest comments that Miss Wallis has filled this article with in order to misinform her reader needs to be pointed out. Notice the next quote she uses:
“Mathematical arguments against evolution are equally misguided, says Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology. "You cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about," he says. "We don't have the information to make this calculation." Nowak, who describes himself as a person of faith, sees no contradiction between Darwin's theory and belief in God. "Science does not produce any evidence against God," he observes. "Science and religion ask different questions."
This only proves that having credentials does not always guarantee that a person will give reliable or correct information.
But notice how crafty she is, she allow this comment without any counter by a creationist or I.D. scientist or Mathematician, (this tactic is common throughout her article). Calculating the probability of the eye is not what Christian mathematicians do to expose the impossibility of evolution, but the mathematical probability of life coming from non-life or one kind of animal evolving into another are easily calculable.
Nowak should be aware of the mathematical formula that Dr. Gary Parker and the Late Dr. Henry Morris presented for determining the probability of the chance origin of life in their revised book, “What is Creation Science” (pg. 269-276).
Their calculations prove that life coming from non-life is mathematically impossible.
The evidence of physics alone states a mathematical impossibility of evolution. The force of gravity for instance is just right for life on our planet. Any slight change and life would not have occurred and would be wiped out. This and some thirty other parameters that must be perfectly toned for life on earth including the Cosmological Constant and the atomic level nuclear force make it easy to mathematically determine the possibility of life beginning on its own. Miss Wallis does not seem to be interested in any of this information. She only seems to want to give evolutionists top billing as the ones with the best answers. Which is why she has carefully avoided the use of any conservative YEC's creationists comments.
As for Nowak’s claim that we don’t have the information to make these calculations, that has never stopped evolutionists from making up fantastic claims in the past.
And the fact that he does not see any contradiction between Darwin’s theory and belief in God is no surprise. Since he is deeply influenced by Darwinism as and evolutionary biologist, he would believe the lies issued by crafty atheist evolutionists who are seeking to con the religious community. But an informed creationist who knew his Bible, would know that a contradiction does indeed exist between Darwin’s theory and belief in God. (Genesis 1)
After mentioning that “Polls” show that approximately 45% of Americans believe the Bible version of creation she states the following:
“It's no wonder that almost one-third of the 1,050 teachers who responded to a National Science Teachers Association online survey in March said they had felt pressured by parents and students to include lessons on intelligent design, creationism or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classes;”
I would ask why she did not first cite the point that the overwhelming majority of the scientists in the NSTA are atheist?
First, I doubt that the NSTA would be honest about the percentage as they are one of many organisations whose agendas are hostile towards biblical truth. Also, the fact that they had to be “Pressured” to teach what they should be teaching speaks volumes about their state. Lastly, notice that she calls I.D. and creationism “non-scientific”, which is another of the many dishonest mantras that they repeat as often as possible. The fact that I.D. and creationism is more scientific than evolution will not be allowed to enter her mind or her article.
It was refreshing however to see her admit that there was a “movement” afoot to promote evolution in schools. She States:
“The standards movement in education has, overall, strengthened the teaching of evolution,”
She continued with some revealing information:
“In 2000, 10 states had no mention of evolution in their curriculum standards. Now only Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma--states with long creationist traditions--make this omission."
This is why it is so important for Christians to wake up and recognize their obligation to defend the truth against the massive atheistic dominance in our public schools. Note her next comment:
“In June, Alaska's state board of education was pressured by scientists, teachers and concerned citizens to add evolution to science standards that had avoided the topic.”
It is nice to see her admit that evolutionists are applying pressure also, even though she does not dare include any statistics. For that you will have to read Dr. Jerry Bergman’s book “Slaughter of the Dissidents” which documents the common fate of any education professional who dares to openly question Darwinism.
I will end my examination here since enough has been presented to make my point about Miss Wallis. Anyone reading her article could see that she had an agenda by writing it, which did not include being unbias.
Now I will give you the word for word conversation that I had with her when I spoke to her by phone. If my examination of her article has not convinced you that she had an anti-Christian,
pro-evolution motive for writing the article then perhaps this interview will convince you.
DM-This is Danzil Monk at ….. College, is this Claudia Wallis?
DM-How are you?
DM-I’m calling to do a brief interview with you in reference to the article that you did in Time Magazine, The Evolution Wars?
CW-Are you a student?
DM-No, I am an administrator.
CW-You’re an administrator?
You sound so young.
DM-Oh I thank you.
CW-So, a, what’s the purpose of the interview?
DM-I’m having some of the students to critique your article but I wanted to get some feedback from you because in the article you didn’t state your position you just did a general article and I was trying to find out what your particular view was relating to the article itself.
CW-Right, but you know the article was not meant to be a position paper for me, it was meant to be a reported piece. We reflected a lot of interviews with different people. You know I sometimes do write opinion pieces but this one was not designed to be that. Did you think it was an opinion piece?
DM-It sure seemed like it. I read it around three or four times and my main reason for thinking it was sort of an opinion was because a lot of the people that were interviewed, and the way in which they were interviewed, and the type of people that were interviewed seems like they weren’t people that I would consider experts or authorities in the area of or within the debate.
For instance, we have whole organizations such as Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, and a lot of well-known scientists who weren’t interviewed. When I read it, it seemed like it was more towards the evolution perspective rather than a balanced coverage.
CW-Right, well you know I do have some opinions on the subject and I do come from a science writing background.
I’ve been a science writer most of my career so you know I am a little more educated in science as opposed to anything, educated in religion or you know anything like that, though I was a philosophy major so I do try to look at thing from a lot of different prospective.
But I really don’t have time to be interviewed by you right now. Fridays my dead line day and I’m working on another piece and I don’t think I’m going to have the time to get into this with you. And I’m not sure that I want to because you know I don’t really understand the purpose of it.
DM-Well, I teach myself and as an educator I try to explain how important it is to be balanced when you are discussing or covering an issue so that it doesn’t seem that you are taking sides and the information you are giving is balanced so that the person hearing our reading you will have an opportunity to think things through on a balanced level.
Like in schools right now, evolution is the position being taught and a student doesn’t really have an opportunity to hear the other side. Which to me is…..(She cuts in).
CW- if you’re sitting in a science class you know, you really have to stick to scientific method when you’re looking at evidence. And even some of the greatest advocates of intelligent design are very up front about the fact that you cannot use scientific method to prove it. It cannot be proven by scientific methodology. (this is not true)
You can raise questions about evolution, but you cannot substantiate the theory of intelligent design using scientific methodology. And even the advocates admit that. So… (I cut in).
DM-You mean that there are no Intelligent Design people that you know of who actually teach otherwise, who actually believe that you…(she cuts in).
CW-That you can get there…you, you can infer and you can raise interesting challenges to evolutionary theory although I think science has good answers to most of those challenges. But you cannot prove, you cannot come up with scientific evidence that establishes an intelligent designer using the methodology of science. And I’m really going to have to leave it there.
DM-My last question, you feel that evolution can?
I feel that what a lot of people don’t seem understand is that science is all about asking questions and that there’s always going to be room for doubt, always, for everything because that’s the nature of science. And if people don’t understand that then their missing something fundamental about the way science works. But on the other hand faith is not like that, faith is a very absolute thing, you know you can know something utterly in your deepest heart, your deepest soul if you have faith. But science is a different kind of knowing, it asks different questions and it has a different method of answering those questions. And I feel that it’s false to try to put them on an equivalent. That’s a false equivalent. They don’t belong in the same biology class room.
That’s what I feel.
Okay, well I appreciate your input and I thank you for doing the article.
Okay, I hope it was helpful…good bye.
End of our dialog
Notice that Miss Wallis first says that the article was not meant to be a position paper, then when I pointed out how bias it was she says that she has opinions and even acknowledges her science rather than religious
background. She then decides that she can’t talk and surprisingly did not even see why she should.
She says that I.D. cannot be proven by “scientific method” but she failed to acknowledge that evolution cannot be proven by “scientific method”.
She says: “I think science has good answers to most of those challenges”
But they don’t, she is just willing to accept those answers as good because she know what the only alternative is.
(Those answers and the creation science response are available in the many articles and dvds on the web sites I mentioned earlier).
When I asked her if evolution could be proven by science she quickly tried to place creation/I.D into the camp of faith while putting evolution in the camp of science.
This is a common tactic to give the impression that only evolution is science. This is proof positive that she cannot be trusted to honestly report on the evolution wars.
Your comments and suggestions are welcome
Please see the link below “Resolution for balanced teaching”
 See “The Case for A Creator” Lee Strobel, Illustra Media