T  W  I  N       C  I  T  I  E  S       C  R  E  A  T  I  O  N       S  C  I  E  N  C  E       A  S  S  O  C  I  A  T  I  O  N

Meet the Press: Creation vs Evolutionism in the Media (and the academic culture) A Scientific Theory

by Tom Willis

As we mentioned in "The Continuing Saga of the Kansas Science Standards" (CSA News Vol 17:5) CSA and the Kansas School Board have endured much media reviling the last year or so. I thought you might enjoy a brief summary, and even a scientific theory for the reviling. CSA and the Press

In the last week or so we have spent entire days with Guenther Mack, an editor of Geo, the "European National Geographic;" and Claire Chartier, a reporter from L'Express, "the French Time Magazine." October 11 we will be filmed for the kids TV show, "NIC News." We have been featured in lead articles in US News, USA Today, BBC Radio, Nature, New Scientist, Swedish TV, Japanese TV, Ted Koppel on "Night Line," and even given three hours to write a 350-word editorial for USA Today. Of course, we have been favorites of the Kansas City Star, the Topeka Capital Journal, the Wichita Eagle, the Lawrence Journal World, and many others. We have also been featured in articles by many publications that did not bother to conduct an interview, such as "George." But don't get the idea that these latter ones were worse than the others. If you were present at any one of the interviews, you would still be unable to recognize much, if any of it in the article that purportedly resulted from it.

Examples of Media Integrity

This is not the place, nor is there the space, for a detailed accounting, but a few examples are appropriate. After The Lawrence Journal World article appeared, I saw Ed Johlman who, assuming I had read the article, immediately started laughing, saying, "I didn't even bother to call, I have heard you teach on Grand Canyon, so I knew you would not say what the article said." "What did it say?" "It said "Willis says Grand Canyon was caused by a volcanic explosion and Mount St. Helens proves it." This was early on, so I was a little shocked. In fact I had spent 15 minutes explaining to the totally ignorant reporter that anyone could look at an aerial photo of Grand Canyon, and it's side canyons, and see that it is not a river canyon; that there is hard evidence of a series of lakes above Grand Canyon larger than the Great Lakes; that the area is laced with geologic faults indicating earthquakes. I carefully explained four incredible hydrologic forces that would be involved in a catastrophic dam rupture with water backed up 2000 feet deep. I also mentioned that it also has a number of volcanos; and that Mt. St. Helen's provided a small scale illustration of rapid rock formation and large canyon formation in less than one day; that the Channeled Scablands (a much larger geologic feature than Grand Canyon) are believed today by most geologists to have formed in about three weeks by a catastrophic natural dam rupture; and that the geologic fraternity ridiculed and vilified J. Harlem Bretz, the author of that theory, for 40 years before finally accepting it. The Journal World reporter can't or wouldn't listen, or willfully lied.

The New Scientist editor (not reporter) actually did report a (very) few of my statements a bit close to what I said. He promised to provide a transcript of the interview, which I never received. I'll focus only on one example of willful distortion. He saved the question he really wanted to ask for last, "Does the earth go around the sun?" I smiled, knowing full well he had read some of my recent articles on the Web, and was drooling to report what I said. I also knew the history of his "journal" as an anti Christian, evolutionist, apologetic rag. But, of course, I told him the truth, "Your readers will love this, 'I don't know!'" I had previously explained to him why all scientific theories should be held tentatively, and never taught dogmatically. I then stated emphatically two more things: 1. The whole message of Einstein's relativity theory was that man's observation of motion is relative. In physics, physical laws apply regardless of the frame of reference from which you choose to measure motion. Therefore, implicit in Relativity Theory, which "modern physics" worships, is Einstein's conviction that man will never know which solar system theory is true, unless we can find a "preferred," or "absolute" frame of reference, one that is motionless, or with velocity and direction that is known. 2. Britain's own Sir Fred Hoyle, stated flatly in his astronomy textbook, "Now we know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." Hoyle obviously meant the same thing as Einstein. In layman's terms, "You can believe Jupiter is the center of the universe. If your relative motion data and calculations are accurate, your efforts to hit Mars or put up a satellite will work the same." Had the New Scientist editor reported it honestly, it would have been obvious I knew at least a little about the subject, and that my stand was less aggressive than two of the leading lights of 20th Century science. The way they did report it left me appearing to be one of about three religious fanatics alive who challenge their sacred cow. Incidentally, one of the first eMails I got was from a Ph.D. professor of physics, who asked me not to reveal that he agreed with me.

A Scientific Theory of Media Attitude Toward Creation

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the definition of "Science" is: "The human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to note that this definition is designed to:

1. Pretend that science applies equally to things that were caused long ago as to things we can observe happening today.

2. Fence science away from a search for true knowledge and into the tenuous realm of "hypotheses, theories, laws, models," etc. which are popularly called today, "explanations."

3. Restrict all "explanations" (theories) of past events to atheist ones, regardless of the absurdity of the explanation.

But, we too, can use theories to "explain things we observe in the world around us." One thing that surely needs "explanation" is the behavior of the media and the Academic Party of Evolutionism (APE).

Tom Willis is the President of The Creation Science Association for Mid America
Therefore, I propose the following explanation (theory):

1. Ignorance: Not one of the dozens of people conducting these interviews had any competence whatsoever in science in general or origins science in particular, including the ones from "science journals." Yet, in their ignorance, they claim to know we are terribly wrong. (A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. Proverbs 14:16. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Ephesians 4:18. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works...Psalm 14:1)

2. Academic Proficiency: Academic institutions have three possible goals: a. Promote knowledge of God. Probably less that 1% do, even when you consider "Christian" institutions, b. Teach students a trade like carpentry, medicine or engineering. Most institutions despise this activity and make every effort to redirect it to "more noble causes" like teaching children to believe evolution or what "science" says about the environment. c. Exalt humanism, the bizarre belief that human intellect can be superior to God's Word in learning about the universe, something the leading lights of virtually every academic institution believe and vigorously promote, including a high percentage of "religious" ones. ("The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Proverbs 12:15 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2Tim 3:7) These unfortunate people reside in the cesspool of human thought. Even of the few who, by the Spirit of God get their heads above the scum ("Ye must be born again"), a high percentage ignore the important admonition of Jesus, "If you abide in my words, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They remain surrounded by cesspool scum and manage to convince themselves that is all there is.

This part of my theory explains why the "most highly educated" folks are more likely to believe evolution. After a lifetime in these institutions, they know too many things that simply are not true. One who learns well, believes what he is taught, and stays long is much like a drunk or smoker who has been at it a long time he has much further to go to rise above his past. For myself, I only got two degrees in science, but it took me over 20 years to begin to suspect I hadn't learned the truth, and another 20 to partially recover.

3. A heart that despises God: Jesus taught that the world despises God and His people, and often the deepest hatred comes from "religious leaders." In either case, like the Sadducees and Pharisees, they much prefer their own opinion (which they love to scream is "science,") to God's, on any issue. This explains why they gravitate to anything that is contrary to God's Word, and despise anything that agrees with it. Any endorsement of God's Word tends to expose their own beliefs as superficial. (And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19).

4. Delusion: Separation from reality: Only a deluded person could believe the "proofs" of evolution provide any support for it at all (See my book, Real Scientists Just Say NO!). The Bible clearly teaches that God will give a gift of delusion to those who refuse to love the truth (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

5. Prostitution: The Bible teaches that men will sell that which is precious, truth, for that which is worthless money, position, sex, power, career, prestige. (How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? John 5:44) Just as important as the "unbelievers," among the prostitutes, are the "I'm a Christian, too" enemies of God. Some, of course are just ignorant, and many will be forgiven, but others deceive many. God has plans for both kinds of prostitutes. ("for he that judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and that avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." Rev 19:2)

One reason so small a percentage of the population (media owners, science clubs and academic leaders) can be so successful in deceiving so many that evolution is science, is the same way every culture in history has been deceived into following some other origins myth the majority, who are not fully committed to the myth, are also uncommitted to the truth, therefore, they sell their souls cheaply. If you have read history, you know that this happened in Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan, Roman, Greek and countless other cultures. But it is certainly not restricted to "ancient history." It happened in Nazi Germany, other "fascist" nations, every communist country, and countless others. Each was dominated by an apologetic religious myth. Contrary to popular belief, Nazism and communism are not political theories, they are religious/political/economic theories founded on humanist religious mythology; with evolutionism as their "scientific" foundation. A key factor in their accumulation of political power is always the prostitution of the uncommitted.


Obviously there is much more, but I think that is sufficient for you to understand my theory. It is, you know, a Scientific Theory: It was developed via the "human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." Some will say it is "religious," but that is silly. It is no more religious than the notion promoted by our opponents that "creationists are all incompetent to discuss science because of their belief in an old book." In fact, I did not mention God nearly as much as every evolutionist I have debated, and the theory would be clear, even without the Biblical references. But, unlike most Humanist theories, it does have the beauty of being consistent with God's Word, and with empirical evidence.

In the past I have warned of the risk of believing theories. The caution applies here. But, good theories, if you pay attention, should reasonably approximate the real world, and be useful in making valid predictions.

Visit their website at http://www.csama.org Return to TOP