Discerning Secular Media Bias and Errors in 
reporting on the creation versus evolution issue

Last updated August 28, 2012

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

We strongly encourage all high school and college students to see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  If you value true academic freedom, and you want honest objective science taught to you in your public school classes, this movie is must viewing for you, your friends and your parents. Click here to watch the move in its entirety.  It's an excellent antidote to the blatant media bias on this issue.

How the secular media distorts the facts on this issue

1.   Claiming that creationists are trying to sneak religion into the science curriculum
2. Mischaracterizing the debate as one between religion and science 
3. Ignoring evolution's atheistic religious roots
4. Claiming that Christians who support some form of evolution are giving a full endorsement
5. Ignoring the religious biases of evolutionists 
6. Attempts to discredit, belittle or ignore creation scientists 
7. Claiming that Intelligent Design and all its proponents support an 'old' earth and universe. 

Sensational new scientific claims reported by the media
Hidden personal agendas and/or biases
How America feels about the trustworthiness of the media
Many in the Liberal Secular Media do Satan's bidding 
Related links


How the secular media distorts the facts

In general, the secular news media does a poor job of reporting on the creation/evolution issue.  In most cases, the reporting is overtly biased in favor of evolution.  Sometimes there is an attempt  by a reporter or editor to be somewhat unbiased, but even in those situations, coverage is usually slanted in favor of evolution.  In the most rare cases, the journalist tries to do a good job of presenting the information in a fair and balanced manner.

Because the biased and/or erroneous reporting is so pervasive, we encourage our web site visitors to be very discerning about what they accept as fact from the secular media on this issue.  We also encourage them to praise journalists and editors who have demonstrated balance and fairness in their reporting and editing, especially if they have a history of doing so. 

The list below contains a brief explanation of some of the most common distortions to watch out for. 

1. Those who promote either of the following two approaches are in reality trying to sneak religion into the public school science curriculum and/or testing standards: 


Teach the controversy (TTC). 
Dr. Robert Lattimer, of the Ohio Science Writing team defines "teach the controversy" this way:

This calls for (a) presenting evidence for and against evolution, (b) adopting a definition of science that allows for consideration of all logical explanations for natural phenomena, and (c) permitting, but not requiring, teachers to discuss alternative theories (such as intelligent design). Since this approach does not mandate the inclusion of intelligent design, proponents for "teach the controversy" are not in principle opposed to the wording used in the OCS petition. Yet we certainly do not advocate an "evolution only" position on the science standards.

The truth is that these are strictly scientific arguments and evidence, and it is entirely appropriate to include them in scientific discussions of evolution.  In spite of the misleading scare tactics by the ACLU about this, it is also perfectly legal to do so. TTC includes arguments that are both inside and outside the scope of Intelligent Design (ID).  However, except for the (ID) portion of the arguments, the TTC arguments aren't an opposing theory to evolution in and of themselves.  TTC allows for the discussion of ID but does not mandate it. TTC also allows for a discussion of all the other scientific arguments and evidence (those beyond the scope of ID) against evolution but does not mandate them either. This approach is the one being promoted by all of the Ohio based organizations that are involved in this issue with us.  The list of organizations include:

American Family Association of Ohio (AFA) - Canal Winchester, OH
ARK Foundation - Dayton, OH
Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (IDnet) - Columbus, OH
Ohio Eagle Forum - Akron, OH
Science Excellence for all Ohioans - Columbus, OH
Young Earth Creation Club - Gahanna, OH (this web site)

Some of these organizations address only the secular, scientific aspects of the debate.  Others address both the scientific and theological issues.  However, the theological issues are being addressed outside of the curriculum and testing standards.

'Teach the controversy' proponents are also seeking a change in the definition of what science is because the current definition is based on the impossible to prove assumption that purely natural causes were behind the creation of all that we see in the universe (for more about this, see Definition of Materialism and Definition of Naturalism).  

Some examples of scientific and archeological evidence that could be discussed in science classes that are mostly ignored today include:

  • the scientific arguments against biological macroevolution
  • the scientific arguments against the big bang theory
  • the scientific arguments against the way the geological column is interpreted
  • the mathematical improbability and scientific arguments against life evolving from dead chemicals
  • the abundant world-wide archeological evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. It is interesting to note that creationists have been ridiculed and mocked for decades for believing this. However, it looks like due to the abundance of the evidence that it's true, it's is finally starting to gain traction in some pro-evolution camps. A recent example of this is the History Channel's program titled Aliens and Dinosaurs. This program presents some good evidence. But rather than to admit the truth that creationists and the Bible were right all along, they attribute the existence and killing off of the dinosaurs to aliens. They also conclude, as creationists have done for decades, that some of these creatures may still be alive today.
  • the abundant world-wide evidence of a global flood (because it dramatically alters the way the geological column is interpreted, the theories behind how coal was formed, etc.)


Intelligent Design (ID)
The debate between creation and evolution has both scientific and religious aspects to it.  ID limits itself to a discussion of the scientific issues. It deals primarily with the concept of irreducible complexity. Its chief proponents are also presenting it as an alternative scientific theory to evolution.  ID contains many, but not all of the opposing scientific arguments of 'teach the controversy (TTC)' above.  It concludes that there is abundant evidence in nature of a designer, but leaves it up to students, teachers and parents to decide who the designer is (see new comments added below on May 22, 2010 concerning aliens as our creators).

ID proponents are also seeking a change in the definition of what science is for the same reasons the TTC supporters are.

Many in the secular media are still harping only on the ID issue.  They seem to have completely missed the boat that we shifted gears several years ago and no longer are focusing exclusively on ID.  The main focus now is on "teach the controversy", which is far better anyway because it includes all of the scientific arguments and evidence against evolution, not just those associated with ID.  

It may be helpful at this point to define a few more terms. The phrase creation science is often used by the media and other pro-evolutionism groups when they refer to Intelligent Design.  Creation science and Intelligent Design (ID) share many common scientific arguments.  They also both imply a designer.  However, they are different in one important way.  Those who practice true creation science believe the designer is the God of the Bible.  However, ID doesn't attempt to identify who the designer is.  It leaves that up to students, teachers and parents to decide for themselves.  Some will conclude it's the God of the Bible.  Others the false gods of their religion.  Still others will conclude it was aliens

The claim that man's existence on earth is attributed to aliens is something we have suspected was coming for many years.  Nowhere is the accuracy of that prediction more evident than the recent History Channel series called "Ancient Aliens".  This series appears to do a good job of identifying the world-wide evidence of what they interpret as "alien" contacts going back thousands of years.   It is likely that they have indeed uncovered evidence that our ancestors and many people today have had contact with intelligent beings that were far superior to us in intelligence.  Where they really drop the ball is in the way they interpret the evidence.  Many people (including many Christians) may not be aware of the fact that the Bible actually has an explanation for the whole UFO phenomena, alien contacts, etc.  There are great spiritual dangers lurking for those who delve into this topic without the benefit of this Biblical context.  We recommend this web site as a good starting point to get informed on this important perspective.  It contains about six hours of streaming video and related PowerPoint presentations broken down into one hour segments.


There's a good book and DVD you can purchase from them. The book titled "Alien Encounters" was the basis for the six hour video and PowerPoint presentations at the above link.  The video is only available on their web site. Unfortunately you can't purchase it on DVD or VHS.  The book can be purchased here:


They also sell a 2-hour DVD titled "Return of the Nephilim" that is a condensed version of the web site presentation. 


is the term most often used by the secular media and some Ohio pro-evolution, pro-censorship organizations like Ohio Citizens for Science.  It is both scientific and religious in nature.  In addition to presenting scientific arguments for creation and against evolutionism, creationism also consists of the Biblical arguments.  If we were trying to promote creationism in the science curriculum and testing standards (we are not), they would be correct in claiming that we were trying to get religion into the science curriculum.  However, our current efforts in Ohio to have all the scientific information for and against evolution included in the curriculum deal only with scientific arguments and evidence.  In contrast, pick up any newspaper, listen to most secular TV or radio reports, and look at the pro-evolutionism web sites and invariably you will find references to us trying to get creationism into the curriculums.   This is probably the most common distortion of the facts by both the secular media and evolutionary scientists.  

We suspect that in many cases, they know it's a lie but they present our position this way anyway in a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, and to scare the public into believing we're trying to trample on the religious beliefs of non-Christians by violating the mythical separation of church and state.  

Our position on this is pretty straight-forward.  If science teachers who consider evolution to be a fairy tale are given the academic freedom to teach the opposing scientific arguments and evidence against evolution, evolution will in the long-run not survive as a viable scientific theory. 

Right now, these teachers are often falsely accused of violating the mythical separation of church and state even if they've taught only the scientific evidence against evolution.  They also risk being fired for insubordination, loss of tenure and face other reprisals for taking a public stand against the atheistic evolution world-view (for several examples of this bigotry and/or censorship, see this link).  Once students are allowed to hear the scientific arguments these teachers have to present, we believe most of them will be discerning enough to eventually figure out that: 

  • evolutionary theory is based on bogus science and
  • it has religious aspects which are rooted in atheism and humanism (in other words, religion is already in the science curriculums)
  • the public school systems and the secular news media have engaged in outrageous censorship that should never have been allowed to go on as long as it has.

As far as us trying to bring religion into the science classroom is concerned, that would be quite a spectacular waste of time and energy given the current legal/political realities.  There are much easier ways 1 to get the religious message to the students that have none of the legal risks that trying to bring religion into the science classroom would have.  It is these alternative methods that we are focused on for promoting our religious message.  If the current efforts to include ID in the curriculum are successful, the importance of getting the religious message to the students through these alternative channels will not be diminished.  We (creationists) will still need to compete with the other explanations of who the designer is to win the confidence of the students. 




Mischaracterization of the debate as one between science and religion.  

It is really the science of one religion, Evolutionism, versus the science of another religion, Christianity.  The scientific arguments against evolution fall into two broad categories.  

The first is different interpretations of the same evidence.  This is where scientists from both sides of the argument look at the same evidence, but interpret it differently.  One good example of this is how starlight and its relation to time is interpreted.  All scientists  have world views that influence how they interpret the observable evidence.  It is naive to believe that this biased thinking can ever be completely removed from the paradigm each scientist uses to interpret what he sees, regardless of which side of the debate he's on.  Still, in spite of these biases, scientific arguments are made by scientists on both sides of the issue.  The arguments made by creation scientists are no less scientific than those made by evolutionists. In fact they are often more scientific because creation scientists tend to point to hard evidence (or the lack of it) where evolutionists rely primarily on their beliefs and often dubious "evidence".  

The second category is what we'd call "ignored evidence".  This is evidence that some evolutionists (and the media) either are not aware of, or that have been pushed aside by evolutionists because they will effectively falsify their evolutionary world view of origins.  This evidence is rarely reported on by the media, and is almost completely absent from the public school curriculum.  This in spite of the fact that it is almost all scientific, not religious in nature.  Examples include new research on radioactive dating methods, polonium 218 halos, evidence from various scientific disciplines that cast serious doubt on the assumptions behind evolutionary dating methods, evidence from all over the world that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, the mathematical improbabilities of evolution occurring, etc.   If these evidences were allowed into the public school classrooms, collectively they would be devastating to evolutionary theory. 




The media will turn a blind eye towards, or is completely ignorant of evolution's religious roots.  

Evolution, as it is taught in the public school curriculum, and reinforced in the testing standards, is deeply rooted in the atheistic philosophies of Naturalism and Materialism.  But you will rarely if ever hear this truth in the secular media. The next time you hear an evolutionist complaining that we are trying to sneak religion into the science standards and curriculum, remind him of the fact that religion is already present in both.  It's there in the atheistic religion of  Evolutionism disguised as science. Consider this quote from an evolutionist:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." 
- Richard Lewontin 2




The line between what is actually taught and tested on in the public schools, and what several individuals have added to it or subtracted from it on their own will be blurred.   

The media will point to people who believe in all kinds of Christian compromises with evolution in a misleading attempt to show support for having overt atheistic evolution in the science curriculum and testing standards.  

The introduction of theism into the equation is something that occurs outside of the curriculum and testing standards.  This distinction is all the more important when one considers that in a recent poll, it was discovered that only 26% of young people attend church.  That means that around 74% are hearing only (or primarily) the atheistic explanation of origins in their science classes.  They probably are not being exposed to a theistic explanation of origins in any meaningful way, or by someone who will vigorously defend it.  Think about what that means for America's future, and God's attitude towards this nation if we continue down this path.  Stay focused on what's actually in the science curriculum and testing standards and see it for what it truly is, atheism.




The media will be quick to point out the religious biases of those who oppose evolution, but will ignore how the religious biases of evolutionists impact the way they interpret the observable evidence, whether they be scientists or journalists. 

The secular media is either ignorant of, or will intentionally ignore the influence that atheists, humanists and agnostics are having on the public school system.   Consider these quotes from five evolutionists.  Two of these evolutionists have been frequently quoted by the media, although one of them recently passed away.

"But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."    
Stephen Jay Gould (frequently quoted by the media, recently passed away)

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!"  
G. Richard Bozarth 4

"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principle vice of any religion.”  
Dr. Richard Dawkins (frequently quoted by the media)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”  
H. S. Lipson

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”  
John J. Dunphy 7

Also, consider these survey results:

"To measure the strength of religious belief in an era of ascendant science, the eminent researcher James Leuba conducted a landmark survey in 1916. He found that 60 per cent of 1,000 randomly selected scientists did not believe in God, and predicted that such disbelief would increase as education spread [Leuba, J. H., The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological and Statistical Study (Boston: Sherman, French & Co., 1916)]. ... And although biologists showed the highest rates of disbelief or doubt in Leuba’s day (69.5 per cent), that ranking is now given to physicists and astronomers (77.9 per cent). 8  

Also see Survey of the National Academy of Sciences that shows 93% of its members are either atheistic or agnostic.

It should be obvious from looking at these numbers why we see such a strong commitment by the scientific community in general to atheistic evolution. Christian parents, are you paying attention to who's teaching your children and what they're being taught? Are you aware of God's warnings in the Bible about evolution? These numbers should be your wake-up call to take action in your local communities and states.




The media will attempt to discredit or will ignore scientists who hold the creation view of origins.  

They (and evolutionist scientists) have many options in their bag of tricks to do this.  Here are two of the most common ones:

  • Creationists, especially those who believe in a six-day literal creation, including those who promote the theory of intelligent design, are portrayed as not being serious scientists.   There are thousands of scientists (and the numbers are growing thanks to organizations like Answers in Genesis), who consider evolution to be a fairy tale.  These scientists didn't get their degrees in a Cracker-Jack® box.  They earned them the hard way just like the evolutionists did.  In fact, many of today's leading creation scientists started off as militant evolutionists, so they can't be accused of not understanding evolution (see Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists).

There are three web sites we know of that maintain lists of some creation scientists (there are probably other lists we're not aware of).  A quick look at any of these lists and it should be obvious that these scientists have strong scientific credentials and  therefore deserve to be taken seriously.

  1. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) list
  2. Answers in Genesis Ministries (AiG) list
  3. Creation Scientists with Outstanding Achievements (our list)

These lists represent only the tip of the iceberg.  Many creation scientists are missing from them either because a) they don't know they can request to be included on these lists, or b) they don't want to appear on them because of concerns about reprisals.  

  • They promote the idea that creation science isn't real science, or is junk science.  At the same time, all the holes that are large enough to sail a fleet of aircraft carriers through in evolutionary theory are overlooked.  When was the last time you saw a newspaper article that explained exactly how life originated from non-living chemicals, how matter created itself from nothing, or even a single observed incident of macroevolution?  Evolutionists have to believe these things on 'faith' because they have no hard empirical evidence to demonstrate that these things actually can, and have occurred.  Creation scientists have presented compelling, alternative interpretations of the same evidence the evolutionists use.  They have in some cases also presented compelling ignored evidence (defined above).  These alternative explanations and ignored evidence are based on hard scientific observations, and therefore are worthy of consideration.  For more information, see It's not science by Dr Donald James Batten and Who's really pushing 'bad science' by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.



Claiming that Intelligent Design and all its proponents support an old earth and universe.

To clarify, the word 'old' used in this context is referring to the evolutionary dating methods that claim the universe is billions of years old.  In contrast, 'young' earth creationists would say that both science and the Bible support an earth and universe that is 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  According to Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of the book Icons of Evolution, "ID is completely neutral on the issue of the age of the earth".  The idea that ID somehow supports an old earth probably comes from the fact that some who consider ID to be good science agree with the old earth evolutionary dating methods.  However, that is not the end of the story.  We know of no polls that have specifically asked this question.  But a 1999 Gallup poll seems to suggest that it's about a 53/46 split in favor of the young earth view.  While the poll didn't specifically address ID, it is possible to extrapolate from the numbers with a fair degree of accuracy what percent of those who support ID are young earth, and what percent are old earth.  

The poll breaks the respondents down into four categories.  It is possible to make some general assumptions about how ID relates to each of these categories (see table below).

Category Percent How it relates to Intelligent Design
No opinion 7% Unknown, so disregard them
Evolution occurred without God's help 10% It is quite likely that almost everyone in this category would disagree with ID, and would agree with 'old earth' dating methods.  Since they're likely not proponents of ID, disregard them
Evolution occurred, but God guided it 39% It is quite likely that almost everyone in this category would agree with ID, but they would also agree with evolutionary old earth dating methods, so count them as 'old' earth
God created humans within the last 10,000 years 44% Virtually everyone in this category would be 'young' earth.

We conclude from these numbers that about 39% are old earth, and 44% young earth.  If one considers only the two ID groups, the numbers are 46% old earth, and 53% young earth.  It is also important to remember that the theory of Intelligent Design itself is neutral on the age of the universe and the earth.


Sensational new scientific claims reported in the media

Evolutionists who make sensational claims about finding missing links and other alleged proofs of evolution often find that the media is quite willing to publish their claims unchallenged.  We suspect this happens because both journalism and science students are rarely given the opportunity to hear the opposing scientific arguments against evolution in their schools by scientists who consider the theory to be a fraud.  Scientists like that rarely have the academic freedom to expose these students to the opposing views.  Our journalists and editors need to get back to the basics.  It is entirely appropriate for them to question new claims of proof for evolution.  It is also keeping with the highest standards of journalism to seek opposing views and to be fair and balanced when reporting on controversial issues like this.

If they really want to, media organizations are resourceful enough to find creation scientists to interview and to write op-ed articles that present the opposing views.  Both the profession of journalism and the public would benefit if this would happen on a much more frequent basis.  However, creationist scientists may also be partially to blame for this lack of balance in some cases.  We suspect that there are media organizations that are willing to provide opportunities like this, but they don't because no creation scientist has approached them asking for it.  Our creation scientists need to make sure they're taking the initiative to contact their local media outlets to ask for interview and/or op-ed article opportunities, especially those who hold PhD's.

Hidden personal agendas and/or biases

Some editors and reporters may have personal agenda's and biases we know nothing about. People like that clearly exist in the public schools, so it is conceivable that reporters and editors in many of our nation's media outlets are using their positions to push their own agendas, whether it be evolution, atheism, humanism, a hatred of Christians, homosexuality, or whatever.  If they're not pushing an agenda, they certainly may be filtering what they report, or how they report it.  We are not suggesting that all reporters or even most reporters are doing this.  We are suggesting that it probably happens a lot more than the public is aware of, and that the public would be alarmed if they knew the full extent of how much it is occurring.

It is important to remember that some journalists and editors have a  personal vested interest in trying to discredit creation.  They have correctly deduced that if they can destroy the credibility of creation and those who espouse it, that they will undermine the credibility of  Christianity in general.  If they do that, they will have succeeded in removing the foundation for the morale absolutes this nation was built upon.  Once that is done, it's much easier to clear away any remaining resistance to them having whatever sinful behavior they're trying to justify "accepted" by society.  Unfortunately, a lot of Christians still haven't figured out that Christianity is under a major attack in this way thanks in large part to the junk science and Biblical heresies being promoted by people like Dr. Hugh Ross.

Looking at the backgrounds of one group of journalists may give some insight as to why this kind of biased reporting seems to be widespread in the media.  In one poll, 240 journalists were surveyed from several major outlets comprising the 'media elite,' including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the three television networks.  One finding was that "50% claim no religious affiliation whatsoever. Only 8% go to church or synagogue weekly, and 86% seldom or never attend religious services".  Mainstream America clearly is not well represented in the profession of journalism if these numbers are typical.

Another poll framed the problem in a slightly different, but similar way.  It found that "Sixty-nine percent of the national journalists said the "distinction between reporting and commentary has seriously eroded," and that is up from 53 percent in 1995."  Commentary is the expression of one's personal opinions.  It is not the kind of investigative reporting that is needed to properly cover an issue like creation versus evolution.

This link from Concerned Women for America provides insight into the homosexual influence at some of the nation's largest left-wing media outlets.  In this case, the New York Times. The tenth annual National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention hosted over six hundred attendees. Speakers openly questioned whether they should report any viewpoint that disagrees with theirs. Here's a quote from this article:

"The pro-homosexual metamorphosis at The New York Times has advanced so far that on any given day, three-quarters of the people who decide what goes on the front page are “not so closeted homosexuals,” according to Richard Berke, the Times’ National Political Correspondent."


America's attitude towards the media

A Gallup poll in December, 1998 asked this question:

"In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, TV., and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?"

Only 11% said "A great deal". 88% respond said from a "fair" amount to "none at all". In June, 1999, another Gallup poll was conducted that asked this question:

"Now I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one -- a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"

When asked about "Newspapers", 66% said "some", "very little" or "none". This was among the lowest ratings of all the institutions asked about.


1.  A list of some of the ways the religious aspects of creation can be revealed to public school students that don't carry any of the legal risks that trying to bring religion into the science curriculum would have:
  • Creation clubs in the schools.
  • Students expressing their beliefs about religion in the form of homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments (they can do the same thing concerning the scientific arguments against evolution). 
  • Personal witnessing by students to other students.
  • Reading and other materials passed out to students by other students or by non-students just outside the school grounds.
  • Creation videos and other programming on public access cable TV channels.
  • Live radio programs where listeners can call in with questions.
  • Internet web sites like this one and many others.
  • Donating creation books, videos, etc. to local libraries and promoting their use.
  • Creation seminars by local and national speakers.
  • Creation scientists debating evolutionists (if evolutionists in general will quit being so scared to engage in a fair debate).
  • Letters to the Editors of local newspapers.
  • Creation scientists submitting op-ed articles to local and national newspapers, especially those who hold PhD's.
  • Creation scientists testifying in person to local and state school boards, especially those who hold PhD's to help influence them to present the opposing scientific arguments in the curriculum.
  • Churches making creation materials, both scientific and Biblical available in their libraries and promoting their use.
  • Churches dedicating Sunday school and other classes to this topic.  Both the scientific and Biblical aspects need to be addressed in these classes, and abundant materials are available to do this.
2. Lewontin, R., "Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, January 1997, p. 31.
3. Gould, Stephen Jay, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, vol. 103 (February 1994), page 14
4. Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.
5. Dawkins, Richard, "Is Science a Religion?" The Humanist, vol. 57 (January/February 1997), page 26
6. Lipson, H. S., "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May 1980), p. 138.
7. Dunphy, John J., A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, vol. 43 (January/February 1983), pp. 23-26.
8.  Larson, Edward J., and Larry Witham, Scientists are Still Keeping the Faith, Nature, vol. 386 (April 3, 1997), pp. 435-436.


See also these links: From the start, the fix was in
Is a homosexual agenda driving the ultra-left-wing reporting at the New York Times? 
More Fallout in Kansas
Responses to Columbus Dispatch articles
'Hunting for truth' in the secular media!
Media Research Center - The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias

Top   |   Home