Logo

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

National Geographic's Bravado Exposed


A Response by Apologetics Press

On various occasions, those in the evolutionary community make a "big splash" propagating their views. That very thing happened in 2002 when John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, published a caustic article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" that he, personally, had authored. The same type of thing also occurred in the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report when Thomas Hayden, a staff writer for that popular newsmagazine, published a cover-story article titled "A Theory Evolves." Both of those articles, of course, sought to establish evolution as a "fact" that is accepted by all "intelligent people." Simultaneously, the authors of the articles also sought to denigrate creationists by depicting them as "backwoods bubbas" who should be sent packing with a gentle wave of the hand and a quiet pat on the head.

When those two publications released their attacks upon creationism, our offices responded--quickly and effectively. Dr. Brad Harrub (our Director of Scientific Information) and I co-authored in-depth, exhaustive reviews of both articles, in which we examined the evolutionists' arguments point by point, and dismantled them piece by piece--demonstrating their fallacious nature in the process. Each of the rebuttals was placed prominently on the home page of our Web site, where they were viewed by thousands and thousands of people around the world. Links to the articles appeared on creationist Web sites, church Web sites, home-schooling Web sites, and other places, with strong recommendations that people view the articles and pass them on to others. The extensive rebuttals we produced demonstrated that the evolutionists' arguments can be answered--and refuted.

Now, evolutionists have decided to try to make another "big splash." The November 2004 issue of National Geographic asked the rhetorical question (in giant, 250-point bold maroon type on its cover): WAS DARWIN WRONG? Needless to say, the answer--provided in a 33-page-long feature story--was "NO! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming!"

With great flourish, and its archetypical gorgeous color photographs, National Geographic painted a picture of evolution as a concept that is accepted by "every attentive person." And, conversely, the author of the article, David Quammen (whose self-confessed specialty is literature, not science!), assured his readers that those who do not believe in evolution "live in confusion and ignorance."

Enough is enough! Once again, the staff at Apologetics Press has arisen to the challenge of responding to the evolutionists' ancient arguments and insulting innuendoes. Dr. Harrub and I have produced an incredibly extensive rebuttal to the November 2004 issue of National Geographic. And when I say "extensive," I mean it! The refutation consumes 55 pages of a Microsoft Word document! The article, "National Geographic Shoots Itself in the Foot--Again!" (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2644, is available on-line at our Web site in both html and PDF formats for your convenience. The rebuttal examines National Geographic's arguments one by one, and scientifically demolishes them point by point.)

Interestingly, David Quammen trotted out tired old canards that even evolutionists have admitted should no longer be used as evidence for organic evolution. In his article, Mr. Quammen offered up as "proof" of evolution such things as: the so-called Eohippus to Equus horse evolution scenario (which evolutionists haven't used in several decades); embryonic recapitulation (including the idea that human embryos have gill slits--something scientists have known for more than 150 years to be false); Archaeopteryx as the alleged "missing link" between reptiles and birds (which, evolutionary paleontologists admit, is quite impossible, since a fossil of a true bird--Protoavis texensis--has been discovered that precedes Archaeopteryx by 75 million years, according to their timescales); and so on.

There's an old saying that seems to be applicable here: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Nope, you surely can't. We believe it's time for people to stop being fooled, and past time for what renowned American newscaster Paul Harvey might call "the rest of the story" to be told. The exposť that you'll find on our Web site (www.ApologeticsPress.org) provides you with exactly that--"the rest of the story."


TCCSA
Twin Cities Creation Science Association
Creation Science Writing Contest
Join in This Year


See Also Midwest Creation Fellowship and Click on "Essay Contest"

What: Students (public, private, and home school) of all ages will research and compose papers on creation science topics and turn them in for review, judging, and possible prizes.

Purpose:
1. Enhance knowledge and long-term interest in creation science among the next generation.
2. Youth will understand the factual, philosophical, spiritual, and societal implications of creation science.
3. An opportunity will be provided for student writers to advance in their skills of logic, reasoning, research and written communication.
4. Adults will mentor youth as they begin the task of carrying on the research and proclamation of God's truth found in creation science.
5. Acquaint students, parents, and teachers with the mission and resources of TCCSA.

Method: 1. Students will submit original papers on creation science topics.
A. Length will vary by age
As a general guideline, 75-100 words x grade of student.

B. A list of suggested topics will be provided, and links to resources can be found on the www.tccsa.tc web site under "Links," "Articles" and "Debate." Use "Search" on www.tccsa.tc as well as on many of the linked sites to look up a particular topic. See Have A Creation Question?

C. Each student will find someone to mentor them. A mentor monitors the research process, accuracy, methodology and organization of the paper.

D. Papers will be submitted via electronic medium to CreationSciencePapers{at}juno.com
(Note: you must replace the {at} with {at} in the e-mail address)
Submission deadline is May 15
Send as an attachment, saved in "rich text" format: "rtf"
(Microsoft Word documents may be saved as "rtf" by using the "save as" dialogue box.)
In subject line write author's name and grade level
In the body of the message area please state
Name of student
Age of student on May 15
Home address
E-mail address
Name and address of student's mentor and relationship to student,

E. An application "donation" of $5 per entry would be welcomed to cover the cost of prizes.
The donation may be mailed to
Twin Cities Creation Science Association
6300 Georgia Avenue N
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428

2. Papers will become the property of TCCSA, and may be reproduced and distributed by TCCSA, with acknowledgement of the author's name and age.

3. Judging of Papers
A. Papers will be read by volunteers, composed of TCCSA Board members and parents.
B. Paper judging criteria:
- content organization and documentation
- Biblical and scientific accuracy
- how well the paper promotes the TCCSA position of creation science and related topics as compared with other perspectives

4. The writers of selected papers will be invited to present their work in front of a public audience during a TCCSA lecture. Prizes will be awarded to all who are chosen to present their papers publicly

Suggested paper topics
1. The Key Fallacies of the Big Bang Theory
2. The Key Fallacies of Evolution
3. The Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
4. The Earth's Pre-Flood Environment
5. The Post-Flood Dispersal of People, Plants, and Animals
6. What happened to the dinosaurs?
7. "Darwin's Black Box" or "Irreducible Complexity"
8. How to winsomely discuss scientific creationism with humanistic evolutionists
9. Did God use evolution to set up the earth with life?
10. Random Chance or God as Designer: A Universal Principle
11. How Creation Displays the Character of God
12. The Geologic Column
13. Did Humans and Dinosaurs Co-Exist?
14. Geologic Dating: Methods and Accuracy
15. Evolution, Euthanasia, and Abortion: How they are related.
16. Cloning: Cutting edge science or Playing God?
17. The Creation Science Answer to Animal Rights Activists
18. Mutations: Is it possible for useful information to be added and passed on?
19. ... MANY MORE IDEAS CAN BE ADDED!!!

Click HERE for more information.

Please direct all inquiries concerning this writing contest to CreationSciencePapers{at}juno.com


Minnesota Department of Education
Minnesota Academic Standards



If you live in Minnesota, you may have heard about the process to replace the discontinued and discredited "Profile of Learning." Overall, removing the busywork that took time from legitimate educational pursuits will be good, but it looks like the indoctrination in evolution will continue. The time for commenting on the proposed standards is now closed.

For a letter from Senator Santorum regarding the Santorum Amendment as it applies to teaching the controversy, click HERE.

Minnesota Academic Standards

If you live in Minnesota, you may have heard about the process to replace the discontinued and discredited "Profile of Learning." Overall, removing the busywork that took time from legitimate educational pursuits will be good, but it looks like the indoctrination in evolution will continue. The time for commenting on the proposed standards is now closed.

A TCCSA Board Member, who attended one of the public forums where citizens were given the opportunity to offer input, described the meeting as "uncivilized." There were enough people signed up for three minute speeches to fill four hours. Right from the beginning, the chair failed to control the meeting. One of the standards committee members, a Minnesota legislator, an anti-creationist, when supposedly simply stating name and district, took the opportunity to give a long impassioned, opinion-based pep talk putting down those who sought to infiltrate and poison the curriculum process toward presenting creation. His goal appeared to be to rally the backers of evolution into a heightened emotional state, giving them implicit permission to act in a rowdy manner throughout the duration of the meeting. The hall was packed with anti-creationists. Whenever someone said anything favorable to creation, they were rudely interrupted with hisses and boos. The two atheists speakers were treated with respect, and even cheered. There was a lack of fairness evident in the information-gathering phase of this curriculum review process. The reason? Some people have the audacity to propose teaching both sides of the controversy.

For a commentary on the guidelines by Ross Olson, click HERE.

For a letter to all the members of the Minnesota Science Standards Committee by Bryce Gaudian click HERE.

For a letter by Ross Olson to the Star Tribune, regarding the teaching of intelligent design, click HERE.

For a letter from Senator Santorum regarding the Santorum Amendment as it applies to teaching the controversy, click HERE.


There was a big controversy regarding the Minneapolis preview of the movie "Expelled"

PZ Myers' "Pharyngula" Blog: (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) details how he was excluded from the preview although Richard Dawkins was let in. You may have to scroll down to get to 3/20/08.

If you cannot access that, the text, minus the links can be viewed HERE.

This fits with what witnesses saw.

There is an atheists' convention in Minneapolis Good Friday through Easter. Dawkins and P.Z. Myers came for that event, although Myers did not have far to come, being a Minnesotan. The screening also took place at other locations, for example at Southwestern Seminary and the National Religious Broadcasters convention. Those planning the screening must have known about the atheists' convention in Minneapolis, and were probably aware that there would be some sort of response because the producer, Mark Mathis, was at the Minneapolis showing.

There was apparently a list of those to be excluded and yet Dawkins was let in, either because he was not on the list or was missed. P. Z. Myers' wife got in but P.Z. Myers himself was excluded. Concern about letting opponents in is partly that there was some indication that people were planning to video tape the movie and put it on the internet to decrease attendance and income when it opens.

Both Myers and Dawkins appeared in the movie and gave their usual opinions that intelligent design is not science, should not be allowed in the scientific community and has no place in education.

Dawkins did speak afterwards and mainly claimed that the clips showing him were taken under false pretenses. He also claimed hypocrisy in that P. Z. Myers was excluded from the showing. He did not justify his claims that ID is not science. The producer answered Dawkins stating that they have proof that Dawkins knew exactly what the film was going to be about.

Richard Dawkins and P. Z. Myers complained to a New York Times reporter that they were interviewed for the movie eventually entitled "Expelled" under false pretenses, having been told that it was a documentary on the interface between science and religion. What surprised them is that their well known opinions confirm the film's thesis that academic freedom and open debate of the evidence is not allowed on the topic of evolution. The problem is that they have trouble seeing themselves as "bad guys."

Reported by Ross Olson

|