Journalist Admits She’s a Creationist and Drives Evolutionists Insane

There are 7 Comments

G. N. Barkman's picture

This is one brave lady.  "and now for the rest, let's clap and cheer."

G. N. Barkman

dgszweda's picture

I am not sure her approach is necessarily the most air-tight or one that help the "cause".  I do applaud her for standing up though on a principle, even though it is not the most biblically sound principle ("the theory that doesn't sound the worst").

Easton's picture

From the article: "Creationism and evolution aren’t equivalent stories to be believed or not. Creationism is magic and evolution is facts."

After I stopped laughing at Jim Peet's post and I noticed the word "magic" used in the article, I immediately remembered sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke's "Three Laws" - 

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Around A.D. 1890, 19th century scientists declared that "the basic fundamental principles governing the behaviour of the physical universe were known.”*  Of course, today, we find that laughable - and who's to say that in A.D. 2090 statements like "evolution is facts" won't receive the same scorn?

*Quantum Physics: Illusion Or Reality? Alastair I. M. Rae, 1986, p. 2

JobK's picture

Wasn't just about everyone a creationist before evolutionary ideas raised their ugly heads? Unitarians and deists were creationists before they became evolutionists, and if there wasn't such societal pressure to be an evolutionist a lot of them would still be creationists.

And isn't just about everyone who hasn't come in contact with western education - which would mean the clear majority of the world's population - some sort of creationist? So even today, lots of Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, oneness pentecostals, Jews etc. believe in some form of special creation. Adding a liberal New York mainstream media writer to the lot of folks who are creationists without Christ doesn't amount to anything. Instead, that people like Tim Keller and Alister McGrath are able to profess belief in evolution and still remain extremely influential in evangelical Christianity is a much bigger problem. 

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura

Charlie's picture

I read only the first link. That woman is truly uninformed. She began with a flagrant ad hominem, basically, that the scientists she knows are crappy people, unlike nice, cool, techy people. She does not seem to have any grasp on the argument of On the Origin of Species, which is not at all tautologous. She views the Big Bang and Adam and Eve as rival "stories" when 1) they are not mutually exclusive and 2) the Big Bang is a scientific hypothesis, not a story. How amusing or intriguing she finds it is irrelevant. Finally, she conflates certain practitioners of evolutionary psychology, a new and somewhat fringe field, with evolutionists in general, as if plausibility or lack thereof of psychological theories in any way influences the credibility of paleontology, molecular biology, or physics. Likewise, her choice of "a story with God" indicates that she is unable to do what the scientific community has labored hard at for over a century, distinguishing the theses of the theory of evolution from any particular scientific or religious interpretation of it.

My Blog:

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin