Time (Magazine)to get more transparent

Answers in Genesis ^ | February 1, 2005 | Mark Looy

[Tamar1973]

Some AiG supporters have asked us to comment on the current issue of the weekly international newsmagazine, Time (January 31, 2005), and its article about current efforts across the US to expose public school students to the grave scientific problems with molecules-to-man evolution. (Its main rival, Newsweek, features a similar article this week as well.)

A few thoughts on this Time article:

• Finally Time is admitting that the Kansas board of education never did eliminate evolution from its science curriculum. Although (to our knowledge) Time has never retracted this false claim (see our previous article It's time for TIME to get it right!) made in 1999 (even though AiG and others contacted the magazine to correct its misreporting), this current article in Time is finally acknowledging that evolution was not removed from that state's schools.

• The title of the article "Stealth attack on evolution" is misleading. Most of the efforts around the US to encourage public school instructors to teach the massive problems and uncertainties with evolution theory have been going on in the public eye for years. In fact, the school boards across America that have been debating the issue of how origins should be taught in their schools do hold public meetings on this topic, with public comment solicited. Their policy decisions could never be made in secret.

  In addition, groups like AiG, ICR and the Discovery Institute (a pro-"intelligent design" organization, whose leaders do not appear to accept Genesis in the face-value way that AiG and ICR do¹) have been openly engaging in refuting naturalistic evolution and in arguing that the unguided processes of evolution could not have been responsible for the design of complex structures in animals²

• Time meanwhile has, in its current issue, attempted to counter the design argument. For example, regarding the classic creationist argument about the eye's complexity, Time's reporters come up with the lame claim that "a primitive, light-sensing patch of skin--a forerunner of the retina could help animals detect the shadows of predators." However, there is a huge jump from a patch of skin to the highly complex retina. In fact, the retina is an immensely complex organ, comparable (if not exceeding) in complexity to the most sophisticated super-computer man has ever built; and imagine all of the brain power required to design and build such a computer. And to talk of a "primitive" patch of skin that detects light neatly evades the issue of the immensely complex biological/chemical programming needed to turn light energy into programmed signals within a nervous system, let alone the programming to respond to such a signal appropriately. This is mere handwaving and storytelling, with no basis in science.

• The Time article concludes with a comment from a professed Christian who believes in evolution, and is quoted as saying: "I also believe that God is ultimately responsible for the process [of evolution]." But why would a Christian ever believe that an all-powerful God would have used such a cruel and wasteful process of "survival of the fittest"(animals killing each other) over millions of years? This concept goes completely against God's loving nature, and also has no basis in Scripture whatsoever. (See footnote 2 for an explanation of why a loving, omnipotent God allows suffering and death.)

So who is really being stealthy? We would submit that, if anything, it is the mainstream Western media which have been attempting to hide an anti-Christian, anti-Bible agenda for years, but which is increasingly coming to light (e.g., Time's recent attack on the Virginal Conception, or sometimes more commonly known as the Virgin Birth--see AiG's comments).

It is such a bias that has affected their reporting (e.g., Time's inaccuracies back in 1999) and shows how the secular editors at Time blindly accept the evolution belief system.

Actually, Time's anti-Christian agenda is not so hidden anymore. Even in spite of itself, it is becoming more transparent about its biases as it reports on biblical Christianity.

1. It is interesting to note here that ID gives no basis for answering the question of why a loving God would allow death and suffering in the world. While a literal creationist says that struggle and death came as a result of the Fall of the first man Adam, almost all of the ID leaders (by the way, a few of them even hold out the possibility of, or accept, evolution of all life from one creature) believe that death, disease and struggle had been occurring millions of years before man appeared. Hence, man's sin did not usher in death and struggle, as the Bible makes plain. Thus the long-age view has God calling death and suffering "all very good."
2. It could be argued that because some ID leaders claim to be evangelicals, they do have an underlying motive to prove there is an intelligent designer. But Time's blanket claim in its headline about stealth creationists and IDers is a gross exaggeration. For its part, AiG has never hidden its guiding motivation: to proclaim the authority of the Bible from the very first verse, and its gospel message.

[Tamar1973]

There is no middle ground between evolution and the Bible. Period.

[DManA]

Guess that means there's no point discussing it. What are you doing here?

There is no middle ground between evolution and the Bible. Period

[MEG33]

So much for discussion.

[dr_who_2]

Yeah, yeah. People can debate that all day.
But as far as transparency goes, Time and similar big "news" outlets have always been transparent. Transparently left wing.

[dr_who_2]

Yeah, yeah. People can debate that all day.
But as far as transparency goes, Time and similar big "news" outlets have always been transparent. Transparently left wing.

[Oztrich Boy]

Some AiG supporters have asked us to comment on the current issue of the weekly international newsmagazine, Time (January 31, 2005),

Yeah? Prove it. I want names!

[PatrickHenry]

Shall I ping the list, or have we had enough of this subject for a while?

[VadeRetro]

Not prepared to argue about Time's coverage of anything much unless we go back to when I used to read it. Maybe into the early 80s.

[Ichneumon]

Shall I ping the list, or have we had enough of this subject for a while?

If it picks up steam, ping it -- if it fades, let it die a deserved death, it's the same old whines.

But I have to comment on this creationist howler: " In fact, the retina is an immensely complex organ, comparable (if not exceeding) in complexity to the most sophisticated super-computer man has ever built".

Horse manure! The retina is a simple structure of stacked neurons, just repeated a bajillion times. The creationist canard above was probably one of those "read a science article but didn't understand it" moments that are so common for creationists -- in this case, reading that the data processing VOLUME of the retina is freaking huge, and cranks through as many bits of information as a supercomputer, but that's *NOT* the same as it being as *complex* as a supercomputer. A fiber-optic data cable transmits even more data faster than the retina, but it's still just a long strand of glass and isn't "complex". And biological systems are *great* at taking simple structures and replicating them literally millions or billions of times over. That's not "complexity" or "design", that's mindless repetition.

I really wish creationists would try to *learn* something about science, biology, and living things before they attempted to babble about them or "instruct" biologists on what they're allegedly "overlooking"...

[John Locke]

There is no middle ground between evolution and the Bible.

An assertion that is unlikely to turn anyone away from evolution, but that will surely turn many away from the Bible.

Cui bono?

[rockrr]

If Time Magazine ware to get any more transparent, it would become, well, transparent.....

If me it became invisible years ago

[numberonepal]

I thought this meant that they were going to print the magazine on vellum or something.

[Dataman]

It is certainly entertaining to watch the supposedly confident and rational supporters of Charlieism resort to lies, distortions, and manufactured evidence as they complain that exposure of their dishonesty is "whining."

If evolution is a fact, why lie to support it?
If evolution is a fact, why lie about its problems?
If evolution is a fact, why sweat the competition?

A: Because evolution hasn't got the evidence.
A: Because evolution is rife with systematic discontinuities.
A: Because creation is a real threat to the unstable theory of evolution.

[Tamar1973]

The retina is a simple structure of stacked neurons, just repeated a bajillion times.

If it's so "simple" why can't you make one?! What arrogance.

[Tamar1973]

An assertion that is unlikely to turn anyone away from evolution, but that will surely turn many away from the Bible.

IMHO, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creationism.

[Ichneumon]

IMHO, it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creationism.

It doesn't take any "faith" to believe in evolution. It takes knowledge, understanding, and a familiarity with the evidence.

[LanPB01]

"But why would a Christian ever believe that an all-powerful God would have used such a cruel and wasteful process of "survival of the fittest"(animals killing each other) over millions of years?"

Because, as we all know, animals NEVER kill each other today. It would be against a loving God and all. /sarcasm

[Tamar1973]

It doesn't take any "faith" to believe in evolution. It takes knowledge, understanding, and a familiarity with the evidence.

No, it takes a denial of the facts, a heavy dose of materialism, a familiarity with spin, and an anti-G-d bias to believe in evolution.

[AndrewC]

How the Retina Works

Much of the construction of an image takes place in the retina itself through the use of specialized neural circuits

Helga Kolb

The retina is a filmy piece of tissue, barely half a millimeter thick, that lines the inside of the eyeball. The tissue develops from a pouch of the embryonic forebrain, and the retina is therefore considered part of the brain.

...

Primates, in fact, have what is called a duplex retina, allowing good visual discrimination in all lighting conditions. The fovea contains most of the cones, packed together as tightly as physically possible, and allows good daylight vision. More peripheral parts of the retina can detect the slightest glimmer of photons at night. Most mammals have two types of cones, green-sensitive and blue-sensitive, but primates have three types—red-sensitive as well as the other two. With our cone vision, we can see from gray dawn to the dazzling conditions of high noon with the sun burning down on white sand. Initially the cone photoreceptors themselves can adapt to the surrounding brightness, and circuitry through the retina can further modulate the eye’s response. Similarly, the rod photoreceptors and the neural circuitry to which they connect can adapt to lower and lower intensity of light.



...

Although both rods and cones respond to light with a slow hyperpolarizing response, they report quite different image properties. Rods, detecting dim light, usually respond to relatively slow changes. Cones, dealing with bright signals, can detect rapid light fluctuations. In both cases, photoreceptors begin the process of decomposing images into separate parts. Both rods and cones respond to light directly over them. Thus, their receptive fields are very narrow.

An image continues to be broken into component elements at the first synapses of the visual pathway, those between photoreceptors and bipolar cells. Different bipolar cells have different types of receptors for the neurotransmitter glutamate, allowing the cells to respond to photoreceptor input differently (Figure 7). Some bipolar cells are tuned to faster and some to slower fluctuations in the visual signal; some glutamate receptors resensitize rapidly and others more gradually. The cells thus fire either quickly in succession or relatively slowly in response to the same amount of stimulation. These receptors respond to glutamate by activating what’s known as an OFF pathway in the visual process, detecting dark images against a lighter background. (Recall that photoreceptors constantly release glutamate unless exposed to light.) Other bipolar cells have inhibitory glutamate receptors; in other words, they prevent the bipolar cell from firing when the cell is exposed to the neurotransmitter. These receptors activate the ON pathway, detecting light images against a darker background.

Parallel Processing The parallel sets of visual channels for ON (detecting light areas on dark backgrounds) and OFF (detecting dark areas on light backgrounds) qualities of an image are fundamental to our seeing. Vertebrate vision depends on perceiving the contrast between images and their backgrounds. For example, we read black letters against a white background using the OFF channels that start in the retina. Parallel bipolar channels transmit inputs to ganglion cells. Early in development the architecture of the inner plexiform layer, full of synapses between bipolar and ganglion cells, shows that synaptic connections become segregated in distinct, parallel pathways. Connections occur between ON bipolar cells and ON ganglion cells and also between OFF bipolar cells and OFF ganglion cells in demarcated portions of the inner plexiform layer.

If the retina were simply to transmit opposite-contrast images directly from the photoreceptors to the brain, the resulting vision would probably be coarse-grained and blurry. Further processing in the retina defines precise edges to images and allows us to focus on fine details. The honing of the image starts at the first synaptic level in the retina, where horizontal cells receive input from cones. Each horizontal cell actually receives input from many cones, so its collection area or receptive field is large. Horizontal cells’ receptive fields become even broader because their plasma membranes fuse with those of neighboring horizontal cells at gap junctions. The membrane potentials of a whole sheet of cells become the same; consequently, horizontal cells respond to light over a very large area. Meanwhile, a single bipolar cell receives input from a handful of cones and thus has a medium-size receptive field.

Whereas a single bipolar cell with its OFF or ON light response would carry a fairly blurry response to its ganglion cell, horizontal cells add an opponent signal that is spatially constrictive, giving the bipolar cell what is known as a center surround organization (Figure 9). The bipolar center signals either ON or OFF, and the horizontal cells add an OFF or ON surround signal, by one of two means. The horizontal cells can either signal the bipolar cell or feed information back to the cone photoreceptors themselves, which then feed forward information to the bipolar cells the cones contact. Feedback to the cones is now proposed to occur by means of an unusual electrical synapse consisting of half a gap junction; these hemi gap junctions are thought to change the ionic environment across the membrane of the cone photoreceptor. This complicated circuit from horizontal cell to cone to bipolar cells is still a subject of hot debate in the community of retina scientists.