In its April 1st issue, the respected American
editorializes by admitting that they were wrong on
“creationism, missile defense and global warming.”
In retrospect, this mag-azine’s coverage of so-called
evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we
published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas
of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of
common descent through natural selection has been called
the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the
greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no
excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering
articles presenting the powerful case for scientific
creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that
dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood
carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled
us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and
their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.
As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it
to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not
to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack
scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we
succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists
understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or
best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or
special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or
misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them
without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be
elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end
the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an
editorial page is no place for opinions.
Having read that, I too must confess that I’ve been wrong.
After long discounting the
right-wing wackos deeply
conservative who are against everything from fluoridation
of drinking water (which they recently persuaded the
local county council to make it illegal to fluoridate water
in the city of Honolulu) to death with dignity (not to be
confused with sticking electrodes into prisoners and running
120volts through them until their brains and internal organs
fry), I must admit I was wrong.
How could I have been so fooled by human-based science?
Doesn’t faith-based science explain everything? Who needs
scientifically controlled studies? Doesn’t the universe
revolve around the Earth?
faith-based education teach everything anyone should
know? Who needs pedagogic theory?
Why shouldn’t the President use faith-based
criteria to determine how to spend billions of tax payer
Doesn’t faith-based medicine heal all (who needs doctors,
hospitals, and medicine anyway)?
And finally, recent events suggest the need for a
faith-based judicial system. Surely that would better than an
independent judiciary, right? Who needs the Constitution and
the rule of law when you can proudly carry the Bible into the
courtroom and rule directly and solely from that?
Yup, how could I have been so wrong? I guess you just have
to believe and ignore reality.
Have a Great Weekend, Everyone –