Media Bias Stifles Creationists' Scientific Findings, Perspective

AgapePress ^ | February 11, 2003 | Jim Brown

[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."

[balrog666]

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.

He has much to say, but unfortunately for him, a babies dirty diaper has more content than his wild babblings.

[Blue Scourge]

And the assertion that this is evidence of bias against creationidiots is extra-stupid for a variety of other reasons. First, I didn't know part of creationidiocy was a blanket assertion there's no life outside of Earth, and I don't remember a single person presenting the case that there was life in the Mars Rock dancing around saying it was evidence of evolution

It isn't, he was just using that as an example, nothing more.

I agree with the author of the article, what if they did find scientific proof, you have to be willing to think outside of your box sometimes, even if you don't agree with or like the topic. I'm a born again Christian, but I can tell you just about anything you want to know about the theory of evolution, sometimes you have to listen.

[Blue Scourge]

I'm not defending Creationism, I honestly don't care too much for their studies and what not. I don't base my faith on what I can see or touch, which is what some of these creationist scientist do. Is the world Trillions of years old...could be, I don't know, wasn't there when it happened. Currently my origins are less important to me than what is going on right now.

[VadeRetro]

Today there is a canyon there that is many hundreds of feet deep. It remarkably resembles the Grand Canyon (Layers of sedimentary mud of a variety of rock types appearing to be millions or billions of years old).

No one who says this with a straight face knows what he or she is talking about. It's just nuts.

Every layer in the real geologic column of the Grand Canyon is a distinct ecosystem. From here we have the following:

Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase

Precambrian Strata

Paleozoic Strata

Triassic Strata

Jurassic - Cenozoic Strata

Conclusion

I hope you'll give it the attention it deserves, as you have a few problems with the evidence.

[bondserv]

Typically one tries to argue from a preponderance of the evidence. But as the article being discussed in this thread and you have clearly demonstrated, any evidence that does not line up with the sacred evolutionary model can be disregarded.

We ask that the evidence not being considered only under the light of evolution. Is that so moronic?

P.S. The moon is moving away from the earth. Tides are affected by the moon. How far back does your theory require us to go?

[metacognative]

I notice the first resort of you doctrinaire darwinites is name-calling. Covering an insecurity, maybe?

[Terriergal]

We all know the media is biased against truth wherever it is found.

[metacognative]

How can each layer be so distinct if it blends zillions of years?

[bondserv]

So you are saying that the "real geological column" can be demonstrated to line up around the entire globe. Does the Grand Canyon match up with similar canyons around the globe?

Do these layers of "distinct ecosystems" match up on a global scale? Or can someone say the ecosystem here is different than the ecosystem there.

Lets see ahh the bones of this dinosaur are in that layer in Africa, but in America the same dinosaur bones are in a different layer because of a different "distinct ecosystem". In Africa there was a volcano in Montana there was a lake basin. Yeah that’s it.

No, no, no it was a meteor in Africa and a run away glacier in Montana. Yeah that’s it.

No, no, no a Sun flare when Africa was facing the sun while a meteor hit Cancun. Yeah that’s it.

Scientists all agree ................................to disagree.

[Sentis]

"you have clearly demonstrated, any evidence that does not line up with the sacred evolutionary model can be disregarded. "

Nope any evidence that is made up of lies and deceptions by creationists with an ax to grind against scientific research can pretty much be disregarded.

If the creationists came up with anything that was halfway scientific real scientists would take a look at it. An example the Bigfoot/Yeti "Myth". Recently some real scientists have reexamined this (notably the Yeti) because some DNA evidence that may support it has been found. Now most scientists would just have ignored people that said a yeti was running around except those same people that screamed Yeti finally brought in something that looks like proof. When the DNA evidence is completely examined and discovered to not be yeti hair we can go back to laughing at those people. The same is true of creationists.

[bondserv]

Is modern science so precise that there is no room for disagreement?

Draw a circle on a piece of paper to represent your entire amount of knowledge. The rest of the paper represents things you do not know. The circumference of your circle touches areas of knowledge that you do not have.

Draw a second smaller circle outside of your original circle when you gain new knowledge. You have gained a small amount of new knowledge but the circumference of your new circle touches a vast amount of new areas of knowledge that you do not have.

Honest scientists are humble! We hope that Jesus is only outside your circles at this time, but that you will be humble enough to not harden your hearts to that possibility.

[BMCDA]

Evolution has nothing to do with the moon and any rocks or dust on it so I don't know what you mean with evolutionary model in this context.

BTW all these various moon arguments have been refuted ad nauseam and even AiG advises not to use them anymore.
Here is a page that addresses them: http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Moon

[bondserv]

Yeti would seem to support evolution. There is the hunger for pursuing this lead.

If you are a scuba diver are you going to order a magazine about parachuting?

Please allow us to at least try to put some new views of the evidence on the table. Be patient, many good scientists are just now beginning to feel bold enough to float their findings that don't line up with the status quo.

Maybe someday you might take up parachuting.

[Remedy]

Liberal/evolutionary bias bump.

[bondserv]

Not to sure the link you provided says anything definitive. A scientist would need measurement tools on the moon when those meteors hit to determine how much moon dust was laid down by the impacts. (My common sense guess would be that meteor impacts and moon material is the source of the majority of the clearly surprising small amount of dust)

We do agree that NASA scientist’s estimates were clearly wrong.

[Sentis]

your "findings" were old a hundred years ago when creationists tried to push the same tired Lies and misrepresentations. Fortunately the late Nineteenth century was an era of expanding scientific knowledge and a lessening of the grip of mythology and superstition.

Today we are seeing the opposite the superstitious luddites are banging on the gates of science demanding their wishful thinking and outright lies are given the same legitimacy as solid scientific process (anyone see a correlation between this and the moral decay of our society). Moral decay and decay of critical scientific thought are characteristics of a fallen society. We are falling as a nation into a degenerate age where superstition, decadence, and ignorance are replacing the intellectual process. You have fallen into the trap that the Liberals created with their sub standard schools that teach all manner of new age mythology and encourage people not to develop critical thinking skills. Christianity is no different than Wicca or even scientology. All three are anti-science, socialist, and prone to create a society which cannot govern itself but must be controlled by the stern hand of the Liberal elites.


Do Not fool yourself Knowledge and free thought is the domain of the conservative. Lies, misrepresentation of Facts, and unquestioning devotion to dogma is the mantra of the Liberal.

If you can reason you will see that a Christian either must embrace science as part of God's plan or abandoned your mythology. When you fight to prove a falsehood merely because it supports your version of God you are not being rational. God if he exists built this universe on a plan and because that plan doesn't always meet with your approval doesn't mean the plan is wrong. The world is not 6000 years old but your belief system seems to be.

[Remedy]

Lies, misrepresentation of Facts, and unquestioning devotion to dogma is the mantra of the Liberal & EVOLUTIONIST

 

[Sentis]

"Yeti would seem to support evolution. There is the hunger for pursuing this lead."

Trust me real scientists do not want to pursue this pseudoscientific topic no more than they want to pursue the Creationist pseudoscience. They are being forced to pursue it due to real evidence the stuff creationist push isn't science it's at best misunderstanding of basic scientific principals and at worst outright lies.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Here is another proposal - let the creationists explain stellar distances within our own galaxy (you don't even have to go to the Magellanic clouds, Andromeda or the edge of the universe for this one). Those can be calculated via simple geometry, which is mathematic and absolute - and which blow away a YEC theory unless God intended to deceive - which also blows away their theology.