Creationist Wisdom #662: Media Bias

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Canada Free Press, which is more of a blog than a news organization. It’s located in Toronto. What we found there is actually a column, but we’ll treat it as a letter. It’s titled Major Media Refuse to Honestly Deal with Evolution! They have a comments section.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name, but this time we’ve got a preacher who became a politician. It’s Don Boys, who styles himself "Dr. Don Boys." Canada Free Press says he’s “a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows …” But there’s more to be learned in the bio section of another website:

Dr. Don Boys was born in West Virginia, and received his early education there. Following his salvation as a teen, he preached on the streets of Huntington, in the jails, parks and missions. He entered Moody Bible Institute immediately after high school, was married and continued his education at Tennessee Temple College, Immanuel College and Heritage Baptist University where he earned his Ph.D. While an evangelist and Christian school administrator, Boys was elected to the Indiana House of Representatives, and was identified by the media as the ”most conservative member of the General Assembly.”

So what we’ve got here is a street preacher, bible-college PhD, and former state legislator. We wrote about him once before — see A Street Preacher Opposes Evolution. Excerpts from his new column will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Everyone knows that active creationist Christians usually do not get a fair, honest, and balanced hearing of their views on origins. When honest people demand that creation be considered along with the guess of evolution, evolutionists’ knees jerk incessantly (left ones of course).

Yeah, all those evolutionists are lefties. Then he says:

It seems it is not destructive for students to be exposed to all kinds of kinky sexual activity, death education, feminism, transgenderism, socialism, etc., but it is destructive, divisive, and dangerous for them to inquire into the various theories of origins! I am shocked, shocked that the media and liberal groups have come down on the side of bigotry and intolerance!

The street preacher is shocked. Let’s read on:

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website on the evolutionary controversy when state school districts were considering a balanced presentation of origins. I wrote the article, and then rewrote it to conform to their space guidelines, but it never showed up on their website. I was told that it was “too militant,” and the readers couldn’t comprehend it! Isn’t that interesting? I pointed out that famous evolutionists have called Creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” “stupid,” “liars,” “not to be trusted in any way,” “ignorant,” “insane,” and a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Yet, I’m too militant!

It’s a cruel world. The street preacher continues:

Yes, I am militant, mad, but not malicious; after all, this a war, but the problem is that I put the evolutionists on the spot! And, of course, the media elite are, for the most part, evolutionists, so I am attacking them when I attack evolution. They don’t have answers so they suck their thumbs and whine about creationists being militant and unfair! Their accusing a Creationist of being unfair is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

He’s not finished ranting about ABC News:

I pointed out that ABC News could have asked me to “tone it down” a bit since they don’t like militancy unless it is from screaming feminists, radical Blacks or homosexual activists. The fact is, as I told my ABC contact, the network is guilty of suppression, if not official censorship! Bigotry! Intolerance! Gasp! Is it possible for ABC to be guilty of such atrocious sins?

Then he complains about USA Today. We’ll skip most of that, until he says:

The professor’s letter in USA Today seemed to reveal that he had not read anything on the subject of creation/evolution in the last 25 years! The average layman is not expected to be aware of the scientific literature, but it is outrageous for a college professor, who takes it upon himself to speak to the issue, to be so uninformed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more:

Why should creationism be taught in schools? Because that’s the way man arrived on the planet! Creationists believe a sovereign God created everything out of nothing, while most evolutionists and atheists believe nothing created everything out of nothing! Or, nothing became something and something became everything! I choose to believe, “In the beginning, God created….” I choose to believe that because Scripture and science support that fact.

Moving along, he shifts topics:

According to USA Today, scientist Eugenie Scott [past head of the National Center for Science Education] was appalled that some of our presidential candidates also believe in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show where she admitted that God could have created the universe!

We didn’t know about that, but hey — it could have happened that way. The problem is the lack of evidence. Another excerpt:

Well, that was a huge concession for an avid evolutionist, and most evolutionists will not willingly go to the origins issue. They have to be pushed there. They want to jump over “billions of years” to Darwin’s mythical “warm, little pond.” Well, I’m ready wade in that pond of which there is not a shred of evidence but I first want to know where the pond came from! Where did the earth come from? What about the universe? Evolutionists stampede away from that issue as if their hair was on fire!

Wild stuff, isn’t it? And now we come to the end:

The media think they are sophisticated even scholarly in promoting evolution; however, they are only proving what most people have known for years: they are incompetent, irresponsible, inept, imbalanced, and insincere. Additionally, they are the most overpaid people west of Hollywood.

So there you are, dear reader. It’s always good to see that folks we’ve written about before are still fighting the good fight.

Copyright © 2016. 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

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #662: Media Bias

  1. michaelfugate

    Hey Don, where did your god come from?

  2. I have a question about mutation, but I didn’t know where to put it, so I decided to leave it here. I read your comment rules, and I’m sorry if this messes up the conversation…😛 I’ve had a creationist tell me that evolution is incorrect because it’s impossible for genetic information to be added to DNA, which is what you’d need for an organism to evolve into a different kind of organism, which I get. We all know that the DNA limits the “micro” evolution that a creature can undertake, like how strong a certain person can get, etc etc. So I told him about mutation, and how bacteria have been shown to build a resistance to a certain antibiotic due to a few having received a mutation at some point (which isn’t a calculated or intentional change to the DNA, right?) which allows their descendants to be immune to the antibiotic. This shows that mutations probably aided in the evolution of all creatures. But he (the creationist) told me that mutation can’t add genetic information, it only destroys it. Is this true?

  3. @ Emma. DNA codes for amino acids, via RNA as an intermediate, to produce proteins. Any change in the coding part of DNA can, but not always due to wobble, cause a change in the amino acid added to the protein sequence. This may or not change the protein’s function. This is basic molecular biology. Creationists never even get the basics, never mind transposable elements etc etc

  4. So, enough changes in a DNA sequence through mutation, giving rise to duplicating genomes that eventually separate and then evolve differently depending on the need specified by natural selection, can lead to that “new” genetic information in descendants?

  5. michaelfugate

    Information is a nebulous term. Novel proteins and novel functions can come about through many different means. A protein can change its conformation at different osmolarity, temperature and pH and if it is associated with membranes, etc. Proteins can bind with other proteins, with RNAs, with metal ions and these can change form and function. These happen without any primary sequence changes. Then there are many ways that primary sequences can change – some of which will lead to novel functions. None of these need intelligent input.

  6. “that was a huge concession for an avid evolutionist”
    Hey, this avid evolutionist is ready for another huge concession! My computer may or may not be run by undetectable little demons!

  7. mnbo, I’ve got a server in Waalwijk that’s either run by daemons or has a developer with too much access as a directory disappeared and mysteriously reappeared.

  8. I get the impression that Canada Free Press could take some pointers from Detroit Free Press. The Puffington Host may be more rational

  9. If your computer uses Unix, then there are daemons.

  10. TomS, lol, it is and that was an involuntary typo. I’ve been doing this way too long.

  11. Where is “west of Hollywood?” Is our writer all wet?

  12. Jill Smith

    Is he so biologically challenged that he thinks the source of a skunk’s bad odor is its mouth?

  13. Yes!! The Media is very biased…I have yet to hear about the new evidence for the flat earth!!!! as well.

  14. @Jill Smith: and he’s also geographically challenged, unless he thinks the media in Hawaii, or perhaps China, are overpaid.

  15. Dave Luckett

    It’s a dogwhistle. To a certain kind of mind, “Hollywood” means something like “Trotskyist extreme sexual deviant”. “West of Hollywood” would mean “even more deviant than that”.

    One is reminded of G K Chesterton, who puts the line “For that which was our trouble comes again out of the west” into the mouth of Muhammad. A loon like Boys would probably nod along, on the grounds that Real Men ™ come from the west, but not from Hollywood. West good, California bad, Hollywood worse, San Francisco, unspeakable.

  16. According to writers of crossword puzzle clues, “West of Hollywood” often refers to Mae West.

    If I were a postmodern reader, I could make the case that Boys is sneaking in an allusion to Ms. West’s carefully cultivated reputation as a seductress. However, the syntactic structure of the phrase “the most overpaid people west of Hollywood” makes that interpretation untenable to anyone except the most dedicated fans of deconstruction, which I like to define as “a program of intentional misreading.”

  17. “West of the Pecos” is a novel of Zane Grey, which refers to where the real west lies, west of the Pecos River in Texas (viz. Trans-Pecos), and gave rise to the cliche in westerns of the sort: “fastest draw west of the Pecos”. It is not meant in a restricted sense (as if there were even faster draws – God forbid! – east of the Pecos) but as hyperbole (including everywhere worth mentioning).

  18. Excuse me, I forgot to mention Judge Roy Bean, known as “justice West of the Pecos”.

  19. Eric Lipps

    I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show where she admitted that God could have created the universe!

    This is a classic “So what?” moment. Suppose God created the universe. What does that prove about how He did it, or how long he took to do it?

    “God tells us in Genesis” won’t do as an answer, since human beings, not God, wrote every book of the Bible. (Even Genesis is credited to Moses.)

    Everyone knows that active creationist Christians usually do not get a fair, honest, and balanced hearing of their views on origins. When honest people demand that creation be considered along with the guess of evolution, evolutionists’ knees jerk incessantly (left ones of course). . . .

    It seems it is not destructive for students to be exposed to all kinds of kinky sexual activity, death education, feminism, transgenderism, socialism, etc., but it is destructive, divisive, and dangerous for them to inquire into the various theories of origins! I am shocked, shocked that the media and liberal groups have come down on the side of bigotry and intolerance!

    Isn’t this the same bozo, er, fellow who insisted that evolution was just a “guess”? If that’s all it is, while creationism is a solid theory, why should evolution be taught at all?

    And that, of course, is what creationists really want: a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear before the Supreme Court’s 1968 Epperson decision, when it was possible to pass laws outright forbidding the teaching of evolution. Then they could get that wicked idea out of the schools altogether.

  20. Ted – I suppose the writer could mean Malibu🙂 The coast in that area pretty much runs east and west, not north and south. Unlikely that’s what he was thinking.