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

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.

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).