“U.S.News & World Report” Touts Creationism

THIS post is a bit of a quickie. The only news here is that the once-respected magazine, U.S.News & World Report, seems to have joined that marginal band of publications giving credibility to creationism. For another example of a fallen publication, see: Open Letter to Steve Forbes.

There’s not much to be said here, but if you want to see the situation for yourself, read Where Evolution Has Gaps, Creation Might Offer Answers — If We Will Listen.

The article is a classic example of full-blown creationism. That’s hardly surprising, as it’s written by Henry Morris III. The byline says: “Henry Morris III is CEO of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas and the son of ICR’s founder.

We can’t resist giving you one excerpt:

So, what kind of science is being taught to our children today? A philosophy of science, actually, rooted in a worldview that deliberately disbelieves in anything supernatural. No God. No angels. No Intelligent Designer. Everything happened quite by accident.

The idea of origins by accident (evolution), which Charles Darwin popularized 150 years ago, is now characterized as a bona fide scientific theory. Embarrassingly, this “theory” cannot be scientifically observed in action today, nor can it be forensically observed in nature’s record of the past. But it is, nonetheless, believed.

If you want to read more about the type of “science” that does deal in the supernatural, then go to Henry Morris’ website, the Institute for Creation Research. And for future reference, be aware that ICR is now a credible source of talent for U.S.News & World Report.

Addendum: That magazine also published a very good article by Glenn Branch giving the other side: Intelligent Design is Not Science, and Should Not Join Evolution in the Classroom. But what kind of journalism is this? If the magazine ran an article on astronomy, would they balance it with an article of equal length by an astrologer, in order to be fair to the other “theory”?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to ““U.S.News & World Report” Touts Creationism

  1. I remember years ago when there was a report coming out of an older yet recent 1990’s issue of US News & World Report where a creationist claims that he has built large computer that can prove that the earth is a few thousand years old. I didn’t like it one bit. I don’t like any creationist crap and it makes me really mad and stressed when crap like this comes out in magazines it don’t belong. Anyway, I looked at he article and have a hunch that the computer that claims to prove the earth is young is nothing more than a phony.

  2. Glenn, I didn’t know that. Still, presenting “both sides” of an alleged scientific controversy when one side is worthless isn’t very responsible.

  3. Pliny-the-in-Between

    The infotainment industry isn’t interested in boring old facts. That’s why crazy people like that Glenn Beck character get national media outlets. It’s all about selling advertising, by way of gaining viewers, by way of stirring the pot. It serves them well to be able to fall back on fairness doctrines which gives them an out from actually having to do research on a topic. It would not be too difficult for a dedicated reporter to go out and test these crackpot assertions made by creationists and destroy them line by line. Sort of the way that bloggers have been able to do. The real fairness doctrine should be that fringe beliefs should be so described in the interests of being fair to the viewer’s or reader’s time.

  4. Next up – heliocentrism, pros and cons!

  5. Myself, I tend to think astrology is somewhat unfairly maligned in these debates. Sure, the Babylonian pseudo-science is hooey, but astrologers today have no problems with the conventional science of astronomy. Even though astrology was originally geocentric with the stars and planets merely serving as “signs,” their true nature unknown, astrologers today don’t denounce Copernicanism as a conspiracy of godless scientists, but have accepted scientific knowledge without objection. They even use it for their calculations (I needed to know the phases of the moon day by day for a couple of months in 1967 for something I was writing, and found a very nice real science website for that sort of thing thanks to a link on an astrology site). All astrology proposes is something that adds to but doesn’t change or deny existing astronomy (that the stars and planets exert some mysterious influence on human affairs that can be detected and predicted). Compared to Creationism, Astrology may be hooey but it isn’t THAT crazy.

  6. Deklane says: “Myself, I tend to think astrology is somewhat unfairly maligned in these debates.”

    You’re obviously a Sagittarius.

  7. You’re obviously a Sagittarius.

    Dwellers in the Seventh Planet shouldn’t throw asteroids….

  8. Isn’t this the age of Aquarius?

    Deklane, adding nonsense isn’t much different than substituting nonsense, both require the suspension of disbelief and acceptance of woo.

  9. retiredsciguy

    “If the magazine ran an article on astronomy, would they balance it with an article of equal length by an astrologer, in order to be fair to the other “theory”?”

    There really is no apt analogy to use here, because unlike astrology or geocentrism, Creationism is based firmly on a religious belief, and the True Believers of a Fundamentalist Order will adamantly defend their beliefs.

    True, astrology and geocentrism were both in the past tied to religious belief (look what happened to Galileo), but not today.

    Eventually, rational thought should win the day and Creationism will be regarded in the same light as astrology, geocentrism, phlogiston, and a flat earth. That is, unless the Christian Talaban supress rational thought.

  10. retiredsciguy

    Did I say heliocentrism? I meant geocentrism.

  11. retiredsciguy says: “Did I say heliocentrism? I meant geocentrism.”

    There’s a difference? Since when? Anyway, I fixed it up.