By Danzil Monk
(The article was published Sunday November 5, 2006 in Time Magazine)
The Creation/Intelligent Design verses Evolution debate has been going on for many years. It is an important debate that needs to air out not only in the education and science community but also in the public arena. But unfortunately there are certain people and organizations on the side of evolution that insist on stacking the deck against creation science and Intelligent Design in order to convince the public that there is no real scientific debate, that evolutionists have all the science while creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are only spouting religion.
Great efforts are made to convey this misinformation in the media, in public schools and institutions of higher education. One of the culprits in this campaign of misinformation is the unfortunately popular and quite liberal Time magazine.
Every year Time magazine can be counted on to publish at least four major articles that attack the Judeo-Christian worldview by publishing false or misleading information that is intended to silence the truth about Christianity in particular. The field of science is a particular favorite of the magazine and you can rest assured that whenever they deal with the issue of science, their target is “Creation Science” and or Intelligent Design.
Their November 5, 2006 cover story titled “God VS Science” by David Van Biema is a perfect example. Before this they published an article titled “The Evolution Wars” by Claudia Wallace.
I wrote a response to that piece of deception as well and it will soon be available on this web site.
But now I am going to ask you to follow me as I examine David Van Biema’s "God VS Science”.
Mr. Biema opens with the following statement:
“There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God”
At the outset the author ignores the Creationist’s perspective, as if Creation scientists do not exist, yet creation scientists are in the mix and have been from the very beginning. It should also be noted that Intelligent Design (I.D.), has not replaced Creationism, they are two different groups. Many I.D. people are evolutionists but there are many creationists who reject Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution. Also of note is the fact that many I.D. proponents stop short of identifying who the designer is, but creation scientists boldly acknowledge the designer as God.
He goes on to state:
“In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of "intelligent design" (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality.”
Four points need to be made here, first he attempts to make I.D. simply repackaged Creationism which it is not.
Second, he says the attempt is to show “blanks in the evolutionary narrative”, but that is not correct, the attempt is to show errors and lies in the evolution story, as well as the obvious weaknesses in their claims.
Third, notice how he carefully words his reference to Intelligent Design so as not to describe it as actual science. He deceptively describes I.D. as “a scientifically worded attempt”. This is typical of atheist- evolutionists and their supporters, and it is dishonest, since the scientific credentials of the leading Intelligent Design defenders are quite impeccable.
The constant claim that “I.D. is not science”, is nothing more than a dirty “tactic” used by atheists and other evolutionists, in an attempt to minimize the attention and effectiveness of those Intelligent Design scientists and science educators who are effectively arguing the case for Intelligent Design.
Finally, he states that the evolutionary narrative is “very convincing” in its totality. Indicating he feels that over all the evidence for evolution is “very convincing” making it clear that this will not be a fair examination of the issue. Notice that he is careful not to attempt to explain just what is so “convincing” about evolution. He goes on the say:
“I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools”
This is a common tactic of pro-evolutionist writers; give half-truths or distorted information to make it seem as if the truth and the law were on the side of evolution.
Interestingly there is no mention of the judges’ name [John Jones] or his background. Neither is there any indication of the bias agenda the judge was pursuing when he presided over the case, the details of which were exposed by the Discovery Institute’s book “Traipsing into Evolution” and in their press conference by the same title which was aired on C-span. Anyone interested in the facts about the Dover trial and Judge Jones should consult those sources.
He goes on to say:
“..but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design…”
Note the indicated contrast between “scientists” and “intelligent design”, he is careful not to refer to them as I.D. “scientists”. The suggestion is that I.D. people are not scientists, but this is not true. Many in the I.D. movement are indeed scientists.
Also, he fails to state why the scientists are “angered” by I.D., the real reason is that I.D. has quite frankly embarrassed the scientific community by intelligently exposing the truth about evolution, namely that it is dishonest in its insistence that life originated by chance and that there is no evidence of design or a designer. Their inability to intelligently or evidentially refute the fact of design and the information codes contained in all life, has frustrated them to say the least. And it has driven many of them to use some quite devious tactics to avoid the public dialog on the topic, such as denying that I.D. is science at all, and refusing to acknowledge anyone as a true scientist if they believe in I.D. or Creation and reject Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution.
“and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.”
They are “excited” because they have been deceived to believe that such accomplishments somehow prove that life began without and does not require a creator. Yet their blindness has prevented them from realizing that their efforts prove just the opposite; that intelligence is required to understand and engage life.
Notice what he says next:
“Brain imaging illustrates--in color!--the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus. Like Freudianism before it, the field of evolutionary psychology generates theories of altruism and even of religion that do not include God."
This is nothing more than another example of man attempting to explain more than he has knowledge to explain. “Brain imaging” does not in any way challenge the Christian concept of a soul. But as you can see, there are those whose goal is it to remove the need for God. “Religion” is full of all kinds of faulty concepts, therefore “challenging” them is no big deal. But the true definitive Christian doctrine on the soul and spirit of humans is in no danger whatsoever of being challenged by modern technology.
All those instruments show are physical reactions to emotions that are directly connected to the physical via electrical impulse and therefore show a physical reaction. There is no method or way for any man made device to monitor the soul or spirit and that is a fact. The arrogance and deception of scientists seeking to make a name for themselves seems to have no limits. And the willingness of those who are dedicated to atheism and liberalism to help spread their anti-God religion is apparent even in this article.
Note the words “could” and “may” dropped in the text. This is often missed by people who read their claims but it is include because scientist have been caught in so many lies and have been forced to admit their fabrications so often that they started using such words to cover themselves so that they could deny having made the claim when it was proven wrong. This is a common game of science and the public needs to wake up to it.
While some may argue that they are just trying to be precise by using such words, I would counter that if that were that case, we would not hear so much about the “FACT” of evolution, and the context of most science articles, textbooks and TV documentaries would not be so emphatic about the age of the earth, the universe and the common descent of all life on earth.
His next comment is equally as subtly deceptive:
"Something called the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology speculates that ours may be but one in a cascade of universes, suddenly bettering the odds that life could have cropped up here accidentally, without divine intervention. (If the probabilities were 1 in a billion, and you've got 300 billion universes, why not?)”
As for the “Multi-verse” concept, here is an example of stating the speculations without allowing the I.D./Creation Science response.
The Multi-verse hypothesis is a mere speculation as here stated, and a most desperate one at that. Note the words “suddenly bettering the odds”, Realizing that time is a proven enemy if the dead evolution theory, evolutionists have often wondered off into the realm of fantasy to gather intelligent sounding patches for their science hoax. This too must be realized by the public, evolution science claims are more about hype for grant control money and a battle for the public perception of science integrity, than about actual advances.
He then states:
“But a growing proportion of the profession is experiencing what one major researcher calls "unprecedented outrage" at perceived insults to research and rationality.”
What is being claimed here is that evolution scientists are outraged by what they choose to view as Intelligent Design proponents “poor” or “non-research”, and what evolutionists claim are irrational defenses of Intelligent Design as science.
But the truth is that the “insults” are the I.D. and young earth Creationist’s intelligent and quite public arguments against evolution and their documented proofs that much of the theory of Charles Darwin & company has no clout; it’s fake science, a con, and evolutionists counter by dubbing any intelligent opposition as religious irrationality. This way they hope to avoid public debates that would expose their weak arguments for what they really are. Naturally they would experience “unprecedented outrage”. The exposure of their deception has been so wide spread that they are embarrassed.
He goes on to say:
“The market seems flooded with books by scientists describing a caged death match between science and God--with science winning,”
Again, he makes misleading claim that the conflict is between “science” and “God” when the truth is that the conflict is between “God centered true science” and “atheistic or naturalistic, philosophical science”. And for the record, atheistic, philosophical science is not winning, it’s losing, that’s why they are so set on keeping the alternate view of I.D and Creation Science away from the schools and universities. And why they are so deceptive in the media and museums. The Documentary “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” gives a good example of what happens when they are faced with direct dialog and exposed to the public.
“..or at least chipping away at faith's underlying verities.”
I am not sure of what he means by this but if he is hitting at the various views of the religious community on the evolution issue, he should be aware that evolution scientists are quite in a shamble over their differing views.
While they may be “chipping away at” some unfounded view propagated by some churches (which he does not specify), they are not chipping away at the sound truths in science that are being presented by intelligent God fearing people of the science community such as those representing THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, ANSWERS IN GENESIS, CREATION SCIENCE MINISTRIES, CREATION TODAY and others.
Indeed, quite the opposite is true. What is amazing is that in spite of all their resources including the mainstream media, Hollywood, Network, Cable and satellite TV, the courts, universities nation-wide and the entire public school system, they are still losing this battle in the public arena, forcing them to rely on all kinds of tactics to maintain the illusion that they are credible. And the reason is because in spite of their lies and deceptions there are many reputable scientists, educators, organizations and ministries who are doing the job that God commanded them to do and people are getting the message by the grace of God.
While they are “chipping away” at some of the false views of science in the churches, with the blessings of creationist and I.D. proponents, Creationist and some I.D. proponents are likewise “chipping away” at their false evolution teaching. Unfortunately the public does not often get to see this information. Those interested in getting the facts should contact CMI, answersingenesis.com or icr.org.
Notice his next comment:
“Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave”
Richard Dawkins is one of if not the most outspoken atheist and anti-God scientists around today. As a leader among the aggressive “new atheist” who publically states their hatred of God and religion, and do everything they can to discredit Christianity in particular and religion in general, it is no accident that the writer references him. He is clearly giving free press support to Mr. Dawkins and the atheist community, but that is not all, he wants his readers to understand the superiority of atheism over religion.
The idea seems to be that the atheists are the only ones publishing a multitude of books, that they are so informed and knowledgeable of issues and events that they are flooding the publishing industry with material while the Creationist and Intelligent Design proponents are inactive in the area of publishing.
Note that there is no mention of a Creationist or Intelligent Design literary wave.
The writer then proceeds to list a linty of pro-evolution books and their authors.
Perhaps the clearest giveaway of the author’s bias and sneaky attempt to further the cause of the religion of atheism via evolution is his list of authors and their books. Of the eleven mentioned, notably absent is any mention of a single Creation Scientist or even and Intelligent Design scientist or their books. The best he can do for those who oppose evolution and atheism is to mention them in the following manner:
“Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents,…”
Again, notice the insinuation, the opponents of evolution are “theological” not scientific. This is the old “I. D. is just religion pretending to be science” insinuation, but it is not true. The fact is that many of their I.D. and creationists opponents are scientist and educators of the highest quality. But to let their readers know this would be to defeat their purpose. The deception is to convince the public that there are no true scientists who reject evolution; that only ignorant religious people believe in creation and I.D.
Then he makes the dishonest statement:
“..the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science,”
In addition to being untrue, this is an outright insult to the many anti-evolutionists scientist who have defended the concept of creation against evolution using science, because of their love of God and science. It is also an insult to the many teachers who have dedicated their lives to teaching the truth about the scientific fallacy of evolution because they do love science.
It is interesting that he does not list who those “ardent, theological opponents” are.
Again, their goal is to make you believe that there are no true scientists who are creationists or who believe in Intelligent Design. Fortunately organizations such as Answers in Genesis have compiled a list of well known scientist who are creationists and posted them on their web site. He continues by saying that:
“Most Americans occupy the middle ground…”
It would have been more prudent of the writer to first state his statistics as to why he feels that he knows what “most” American feel about the issue. The fact is that most Americans are still creationist, this is something that even evolutionist admit.
“And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony--that, indeed, science is of God.” (Emphasis mine)
So it seems that most Americans require anti-evolutionists to have made a “scientific achievement” in order for them to be qualified to “credibly” argue the matter. Just being scientifically educated is not enough for the evolution rejectors.
The truth is that Americans do not require a scientist to have made “scientific achievements” in order to be accepted as a valid scientists, or to be qualified to argue against evolution claims, nor do evolutionists require such people as Richard Dawkins or the many other evolutionist-atheist who “argue” for evolution to have made any such “scientific Achievements”. Why?
I should mention that Richard Dawkins is not “formidable” to informed creationists, Dr. Johnathan Sarfati Ph. D., F.M. has done a wonderful job exposing Dawkins in his book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” Refuting Dawkins on Evolution" a refutation of Dawkin’s book “The Greatest Show On Earth”.
As for the so-called “widespread hope that science and God are in harmony—that, indeed, science is of God”, for true creationists this is not a “hope” that must be argued, it is a truth that needs to be and is being defended. It is not God and true science that are out of sync with each other but true science and naturalistic science that are far from harmony. This is due to the insincerity of naturalistic scientist and evolutionist in general.
Notice his next comment:
“But foremost of those arguing for common ground is Francis Collins.”
Francis Collins may be the best that he can offer of those seeking common ground but what about those who are not seeking “common Ground” but rather are seeking to expose the fallacy of evolution and establish the integrity of Creation Science in the public arena of ideas? The author seems to be uninterested in even mentioning such people.
Not one scientist from Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research or Creation Ministries International was even mentioned. Why? Because in the author’s opinion they are not worth mentioning, they are in fact too troublesome to give any publicity to. But the real reason is because their arguments are the most damaging affront to the message of evolution.
So, although Collins is touted as the authority in the “Christian community” on matters of science, the truth is that he is not a champion defender of the Christian view of evolution or creation from the scientific perspective. Collins is a liberal Catholic who has little respect for the Bible, and who lacks the integrity to be honest about the flaws of the evolution claims that render it a poor substitute for the God of Creation.
Collins and those scientists like him are not defenders of true science, but are scientists who while having contributed famously to true science, have used their fame to become agents of evolution deception, and are being paid very well for doing so. Collins and others like him are often presented as if they represent the Christian perspective of science, but in truth, they represent the atheist agenda to legitimize the false idea of
The debate which follows between Collins and Dawkins only proves my point that Francis Collins is a poor representative of the Christian perspective on the Creation / evolution debate.
Note the following comments by Collins:
“ I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.”
“By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution,”
It seems that Time Magazine is careful to select “Christians” who are scientists, but who are not representative of the biblical creation science perspective.
I have proven on several occasions the clear bias of Time Magazine writers against creationism and for evolution. Anyone who trusts in the integrity of Time Magazine to present the truth is making a serious mistake.
Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
 As with so many of their past claims, they are changing their views on these and are now attempting to redefine chance evolution as natural process and acknowledging design but by natural cause.
 Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer is a good example.
 This “why not” question indicates the writers convictions on the topic. He is an evolutionist. This will become even more clear later in this article.
 See my article: “Expelled excels in spite of Nemesis”