The Kaibab uplift is 6000 ft. = Initial Water Course.
The base of the Grand Canyon is 1800 ft. = Modern Water Course.
Posted on 02/14/2003 5:41:19 PM PST by Remedy
The president of a Christian apologetics ministry says there is a bias within the mainstream media to present anything that seems to support evolution or undermines the Bible.
When evolutionists claimed they found a meteorite from Mars with life in it, the report received front-page headlines around the world -- and even then-President Clinton got involved. Yet when even secular scientists agreed that there was no evidence of life in that rock, the story received little attention from the press.
Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, says that was not an isolated case of bias. He explains that the secular media -- which he describes as atheistic and anti-Christian -- publishes most anything it can that appears to indoctrinate people and "hits against the Bible."
"It's very hard for us to get anything in there because coming from a biblical, creationist position and worrying about biblical morality [and believing] that the Bible's true, the secular world by and large doesn't want to hear it -- and secular media certainly don't want people to hear it," he says.
Ham says II Peter 3 tells us that men are willingly ignorant, deliberately reject, or choose to disbelieve. Certainly, Ham says, that is being exhibited in the media. And according to Ham, that even extends to scientific journals.
He explains that his ministry, which defends the biblical account of creation, has had to produce its own scientific journals because of censorship by evolutionists. He says it is nearly impossible to have creation research papers published in magazines like Nature or Science.
"They say [our articles] are not scientific [because] they have the creationist philosophy," Ham says. "It doesn't matter how scientific our scientists are, if they come from a creationist perspective, they won't publish them.
"And then they turn around and tell the public [it] can't trust creationists because they don't publish reputable papers in scientific journals," he says. "In fact, they won't let us publish the papers."
Ham says when this occurs, he is often reminded of the passage in scripture which says: "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
When you sa it "resembles" I assume it means it contains layers that will show they formed over millions of years, based on the age of the layers. Or do you mean "resembles" as in morons can't see any difference?
evolutionists?
What could possibly be a link between Martian microbes and evolution? And who said the discoverers were evolutionists anyway? Maybe they were creationists.
Nature and Science have a bias like the major media has a bias:
How Does the World View of the Scientist & the Clinician Influence Their Work?
Does the world view of the scientist influence his work as an investigator conducting research and as a clinician treating patients? Many scholars in the history of science would answer that question with a resounding "Yes." Some, like Thomas Kuhn in his widely quoted "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," have argued that the scientific process is less than an objective critical empirical investigation of the facts. They claim the work of scientists is greatly influenced by their culture, by social and psychological environment, by what Kuhn calls the "paradigm"--that is to say, the preferred or prevailing theories, methods and studies of that particular discipline, and above all by their world view--their specific beliefs about "the order of nature." Kuhn writes that two scientists with different views of the "order of nature" . . . see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction . . . they see different things and they see them in different relations to each other." And we might add that they tend to see and to accept those data that conform to or make sense in light of their world view. So evidence exists that the world view of scientists and the presuppositions that view implies may influence not only the problems scientists choose to investigate but also what they actually observe and fail to observe.
I suppose a sliced layer cake resembles the Grand Canyon too. Of course, in the strat of the earth we also find a progression of life forms in the rock strata -- which we don't find in newly formed mud layers or in our layer cakes. But I suppose that is a mere trifle.
I don't get agitated or unsettled in the slightest over creationist nonsense. Sardonic bemusement is my reaction. If I bother to express any thoughts on the matter, it's because I have nothing else whatsoever to occupy my time for the moment.
In any event, thanks for that essay, which actually seems relevant to a research project I'm currently working on.
Hmmmm. A contradiction if ever there was one.
A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom
The Kaibab uplift is 6000 ft. = Initial Water Course.
The base of the Grand Canyon is 1800 ft. = Modern Water Course.
There is virtually no mention of the planets in the bible. Maybe once in the OT, in a passage against astrologers, and not at all in the NT. The typical phrase is "sun, moon, and stars," as if there were no distinction between a star and a planet. Clearly, Ken Ham could have no scriptural information about life on Mars, and because he's a deranged fool, he surely he has no scientific information -- about that or anything else. His gripe is that the media don't call him all the time for his views on everything. As if he had anything to say.
Good one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.