Does National Geographic Promote Atheism? | The Institute for Creation Research

Does National Geographic Promote Atheism?

National Geographic interviewed atheist Jerry Coyne.1 The subject was not science, but Coyne's personal beliefs. Will Nat Geo provide the same platform for a researcher who believes that God, rather than nature, created all things?

In the article posted online May 31, 2015, Coyne took shots at the idea that God created the world from the perspective of his belief in an evolving universe. He is a professor of evolution at the University of Chicago, the author of the book Why Evolution is True, and has frequently contributed to National Geographic. In this new article, Coyne accused religion of being harmful superstition and promoted his new book, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible.

But what does Coyne mean by "science?" Conclusions derived from repeatable experiments confirm the Bible. For example, the various plant and animal kinds always breed within their kinds, and life always comes from life. But if Coyne defines science as conclusions derived from atheistic beliefs about an imagined distant past where life comes from non-life and animal kinds magically morph into other kinds, then of course "science" would be incompatible with Scripture.

Coyne said in the interview,

If you teach evolution, you're teaching the one form of science that hits Abrahamic religions in the solar plexus. You can teach chemistry and physics and physiology and other forms of science-based inquiry, like archaeology and history, and religious people don't have any problem with that. But, for evolution, they do.1

ICR has been communicating this same message for over 40 years! But we have another message that accompanies it: Science in the form of repeatable experimentation refutes evolution.

All Jerry Coyne needs to establish that evolution from particles-to-people actually happened is to provide the results of two key experiments. One experiment should show that lifeless chemicals coalesce on their own to form living cells. No such experiment exists, so there are no results. Second, scientists should have documented one fundamental kind of creature or basic life form morphing into a different fundamental form, like a fish morphing into an amphibian. No experiment has shown this either.

Since particles-to-people evolution is a mere story—one with no scientific backing—it poses no real threat to "Abrahamic religions" like Christianity.

Will National Geographic discuss these fundamental weaknesses of evolution? Will they supply a platform for creation scientists? So far, Nat Geo has focused on only one side of the origins debate—the side that supports the religion of atheism.

Reference

  1. Worrall, S. In Age of Science, Is Religion 'Harmful Superstition'? National Geographic. Posted on news.nationalgeographic.com May 31, 2015, accessed June 15, 2015.

*Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on June 16, 2015.

The Latest
NEWS
The Legacies of Phillip E. Johnson
Former University of California law professor Phillip E. Johnson passed away on November 2, 2019. His significant contribution to his many law students,...

NEWS
Ape Spit Radically Different from Human
In their quest to try and find some sort of evolutionary similarity between humans and apes, scientists have compared DNA, proteins, anatomy, behavior,...

NEWS
Do Maillard Reactions Explain Dinosaur Proteins?
How could dinosaur proteins persist over 70 million years inside dinosaur bones? That’s one of the biggest questions that secular paleontologists...

NEWS
ICR's Tomkins and Thomas on Point of View Radio
ICR scientists Dr. Jeff Tomkins and Dr. Brian Thomas were recently interviewed on the Point of View radio talk show by host Dr. Merrill Matthews, joined...

NEWS
Inside November 2019 Acts & Facts
How do recently exposed sediments at Lake Mead refute old-earth geology claims and fully support the Flood model? Did the St. Davids Dragon artist carve...