Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

National Geographic biased Cover Story

Expand Messages
  • calmhillsoulman
    Hello everyone, THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATES WHAT CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS ARE UP AGAINST IN OUR CULTURE. Our National Geographic magazine came in the mail today. The
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everyone,

      THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATES WHAT CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS ARE UP AGAINST IN
      OUR CULTURE.

      Our National Geographic magazine came in the mail today. The cover of
      the November 2004 National Geographic magazine asks simply and
      boldly: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" The multi-page (pp.2-35) cover story
      that follows begins with the positive confident answer: "NO. The
      evidence for Evolution is overwhelming." The "NO" is printed in such
      a large font size that it prominently takes up the top third of the
      first page.

      Let me paraphrase and quote some of the article to give you a sense
      of it. (BOLDING is mine, added for emphasis.)

      OPENING PARAGRAPH:
      The article begins by telling us that evolution by natural selection
      is a theory. "If you are skeptical by nature…and unaware of THE
      OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, you might even be tempted to say that
      it's `just' a theory." Then we are told that it is a theory like
      Einstein's theory of relativity, and like Copernicus's theory that
      the Earth orbits the Sun, and the theory of Continental drift, and
      the theory of electricity. ME SPEAKING: The strong implication of
      course is that we all know that these theories are really true, and
      you would be pretty backward and naïve to not think so. And by
      extension, the same can be said about Darwin's theory. Of course
      it's true. You would be foolish to think otherwise. It is strongly
      implied (and later explicitly stated) that all that Creation talk
      believed by some, is contrary to facts and reason.

      STILL FIRST PARAGRAPH: Scientists (those elite few who are really
      informed and possess the truth) use the word "theory" not to
      mean "dreamy or unreliable speculation, but [as] AN EXPLANATORY
      STATEMENT THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE." They hold it "as THEIR BEST
      AVAILABLE VIEW OF REALITY, at least until some severely conflicting
      data or some better explanation might come along." ME SPEAKING:
      Notice again that it is supported by evidence. Also note that
      Darwin's theory is not just a matter of science, but it goes beyond
      science and presents itself as a metaphysical "view of reality."
      This is precisely what Phillip Johnson called "the Grand Metaphysical
      Story of Science."(see REASON IN THE BALANCE, by PHILLIP JOHNSON,
      InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp.17,51ff.).

      But unfortunately, this claim violates the rules proposed by the late
      STEPHEN J. GOULD. Not too long before his death he proposed what he
      termed "NOMA—Non-Overlapping MAgisteria." As I understand it he
      claimed that there are two MAgisteria (i.e., domains of knowledge)—
      science and philosophy. Supposedly each of these offers its
      own "truth," each speaking from its own respective domain. And more
      importantly, they are Non-Overlapping. This means essentially, that
      each magisterium is not to make truth claims that rightfully belong
      in the domain of the other. Thus, according to Gould they are Non-
      Overlapping MAgisteria—NOMA. But you can see above that science is
      not willing to stay within its own domain. Darwin's Theory is touted
      as "the best available view of reality." That is not science, but
      philosophy (metaphysics.)

      Now because science assumes authority to itself to speak
      metaphysically (i.e., to give seemingly authoritative answers to
      questions about ultimate things), science can set the agenda. They
      claim to possess the truth of even philosophic matters…because they
      are scientists! And of course they want everyone to believe that
      because they are scientist, they speak the truth, EVEN IN MATTERS
      THAT ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC! All who dare to oppose them are portrayed
      as uninformed or unreasonable. Those persons who oppose the
      prevailing Grand Metaphysical Story of Science (for example,
      Christians who might be holding a Creationist view when reading
      Genesis, or who read Romans chapter 1 and argue for Intelligent
      Design) are viewed as not stating facts or truth, but as merely
      expressing their "beliefs."

      How can Christians more effectively bring to light what is so evident
      in the National Geographic cover story? Namely, that science tries
      to win all disputes by trying to define "a priori" the rules of the
      game and what constitutes knowledge. They define away all opposing
      views as wrong simply by the fact that it dares to oppose the
      prevailing Grand Metaphysical Story offered by Science (i.e.,
      philosophic or metaphysical naturalism—an "a priori" commitment to
      only natural explanations for the universe). Applied to Scriptures,
      science says that they cannot really be from God. And of course they
      cannot possibly contain truth (that only comes from science.) They
      are only something to which "needy folk" cling to as part of their
      personal "beliefs."

      Get the article and read it for yourself. There is much more to say
      about it, but I will save it for another message.

      Calmhillsoulman
    • crownfive
      What sort of overwhelming evidence do they give for evolution? As I understand it, evolutionists have yet to produce a single transitional form or missing
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        What sort of overwhelming evidence do they give for evolution? As I understand it,
        evolutionists have yet to produce a single transitional form or "missing link." The links
        they've tried to show between hominids such as Neandrathal and man are not related
        genetically. They have yet to explain the sudden appearence of species in the fossil
        record, though they've tried with punctuated equilibrium.

        I don't think we have anything to fear attacking it on scientific grounds. Waving scripture
        at evolutionists does little good and is counter productive. We need meet them on the
        playing field of science. But that brings us to another problem. They don't play fair. They
        refuse to deal with any theory that doesn't presuppose evolution.

        So, I think we need to examine their "overwhelming evidence" and ask more questions.
        They make these claims with apodictic certaintiy, but as I said in a previous posting, they
        make statements that relations are highly likely and jump immediately to saying it's a
        concrete evidence for an evolutionary link.

        I think we may have to push for evidence of transitional forms with genetic links. They
        may push molecular fingerprinting, but I don't believe that is sufficient. But I think we
        need to insist on a genetic link.

        During those times we have a chance to speak with an evolutionist, we need to be
        professional. We don't need to tell them that we are Christians, but we should express the
        doubts and problems we have with evolution. After all, we are exhorted to be winsome.
        Behave in a professional manner, but insist on answers to your questions. Have an attitude
        of openmidedness, but don't let them snow you over. If they say something you don't
        understand, ask them to explain and don't let them get away with explanations like
        "Everybody knows," or "These things are just settled," or "There's overwhelming evidence."

        What do you think?


        Steven

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "calmhillsoulman" <calmhillsoulman@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Hello everyone,
        >
        > THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATES WHAT CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS ARE UP AGAINST IN
        > OUR CULTURE.
        >
        > Our National Geographic magazine came in the mail today. The cover of
        > the November 2004 National Geographic magazine asks simply and
        > boldly: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" The multi-page (pp.2-35) cover story
        > that follows begins with the positive confident answer: "NO. The
        > evidence for Evolution is overwhelming." The "NO" is printed in such
        > a large font size that it prominently takes up the top third of the
        > first page.
        >
        > Let me paraphrase and quote some of the article to give you a sense
        > of it. (BOLDING is mine, added for emphasis.)
        >
        > OPENING PARAGRAPH:
        > The article begins by telling us that evolution by natural selection
        > is a theory. "If you are skeptical by nature…and unaware of THE
        > OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, you might even be tempted to say that
        > it's `just' a theory." Then we are told that it is a theory like
        > Einstein's theory of relativity, and like Copernicus's theory that
        > the Earth orbits the Sun, and the theory of Continental drift, and
        > the theory of electricity. ME SPEAKING: The strong implication of
        > course is that we all know that these theories are really true, and
        > you would be pretty backward and naïve to not think so. And by
        > extension, the same can be said about Darwin's theory. Of course
        > it's true. You would be foolish to think otherwise. It is strongly
        > implied (and later explicitly stated) that all that Creation talk
        > believed by some, is contrary to facts and reason.
        >
        > STILL FIRST PARAGRAPH: Scientists (those elite few who are really
        > informed and possess the truth) use the word "theory" not to
        > mean "dreamy or unreliable speculation, but [as] AN EXPLANATORY
        > STATEMENT THAT FITS THE EVIDENCE." They hold it "as THEIR BEST
        > AVAILABLE VIEW OF REALITY, at least until some severely conflicting
        > data or some better explanation might come along." ME SPEAKING:
        > Notice again that it is supported by evidence. Also note that
        > Darwin's theory is not just a matter of science, but it goes beyond
        > science and presents itself as a metaphysical "view of reality."
        > This is precisely what Phillip Johnson called "the Grand Metaphysical
        > Story of Science."(see REASON IN THE BALANCE, by PHILLIP JOHNSON,
        > InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp.17,51ff.).
        >
        > But unfortunately, this claim violates the rules proposed by the late
        > STEPHEN J. GOULD. Not too long before his death he proposed what he
        > termed "NOMA—Non-Overlapping MAgisteria." As I understand it he
        > claimed that there are two MAgisteria (i.e., domains of knowledge)—
        > science and philosophy. Supposedly each of these offers its
        > own "truth," each speaking from its own respective domain. And more
        > importantly, they are Non-Overlapping. This means essentially, that
        > each magisterium is not to make truth claims that rightfully belong
        > in the domain of the other. Thus, according to Gould they are Non-
        > Overlapping MAgisteria—NOMA. But you can see above that science is
        > not willing to stay within its own domain. Darwin's Theory is touted
        > as "the best available view of reality." That is not science, but
        > philosophy (metaphysics.)
        >
        > Now because science assumes authority to itself to speak
        > metaphysically (i.e., to give seemingly authoritative answers to
        > questions about ultimate things), science can set the agenda. They
        > claim to possess the truth of even philosophic matters…because they
        > are scientists! And of course they want everyone to believe that
        > because they are scientist, they speak the truth, EVEN IN MATTERS
        > THAT ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC! All who dare to oppose them are portrayed
        > as uninformed or unreasonable. Those persons who oppose the
        > prevailing Grand Metaphysical Story of Science (for example,
        > Christians who might be holding a Creationist view when reading
        > Genesis, or who read Romans chapter 1 and argue for Intelligent
        > Design) are viewed as not stating facts or truth, but as merely
        > expressing their "beliefs."
        >
        > How can Christians more effectively bring to light what is so evident
        > in the National Geographic cover story? Namely, that science tries
        > to win all disputes by trying to define "a priori" the rules of the
        > game and what constitutes knowledge. They define away all opposing
        > views as wrong simply by the fact that it dares to oppose the
        > prevailing Grand Metaphysical Story offered by Science (i.e.,
        > philosophic or metaphysical naturalism—an "a priori" commitment to
        > only natural explanations for the universe). Applied to Scriptures,
        > science says that they cannot really be from God. And of course they
        > cannot possibly contain truth (that only comes from science.) They
        > are only something to which "needy folk" cling to as part of their
        > personal "beliefs."
        >
        > Get the article and read it for yourself. There is much more to say
        > about it, but I will save it for another message.
        >
        > Calmhillsoulman
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.