Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Los Angeles Times Chastises Creationists

Los Angeles Times Chastises Creationists

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The Los Angeles Times editorial board decided recently to join the debate raging between creationists and evolutionists, siding squarely with Darwin and the gang. But the Times did not merely position itself along a spectrum of the controversy. Instead it stood on one end and launched a criticism of creationists that was the most contentious, condescending, and contemptible I have ever read.

The LA Times editorial titled "Yabba-dabba Science" was a response to the opening of a new $27 million 60,000 square-foot “Creation Museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky — but given the venom spewed from the pages of the Times one might be persuaded to believe those Christians had erected a gallows for hanging witches.

The Times began its denouncing of all who believe in the literal translation of Genesis by stating the Creation Museum promotes “earth science theories that were popular when Columbus set sail.” Other highlights from the Times’ furious name-calling fit include:“animatronic balderdash” and “‘The Flintstones’ is a cartoon, not a documentary.”

The editors launched into this tirade only to evolve their argument into one that targets three Republican candidates for president, closeting them all with folks the Times calls, “a lunatic fringe.” The editors then examined the beliefs of the three by stating none of them believe in evolution. This appears to be the straw that broke the back of the Times’ editorial board’s patience.

It lambasts them all in one sentence: “Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.”

Taking a deep breath after the expenditure of an awful lot of hot air, the Times’ editors decided to educate their dwindling readership on a particular “fact” of earth science. Fact: The LA Times editorial team takes exception with those who believe the earth is “about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world’s credible scientific community."

It is interesting to note that creationists admit they have placed their faith in the scriptural texts contained in the Bible — a book that has taught more about philosophy, love, hate, joy, charity, emotions, and various relationships than all of the sciences put together in all of the years scientists have studied human behavior. Creationists also have solid footing rooted in texts that have withstood several thousands of years of scrutiny, and that also offer mankind a deeper understanding of what lies both within this world and beyond it that no scientist can explain.

The meaning of life and death is a central component of the Bible that science has yet to begin to figure out. Yet, this subject is core to every human being. Biblical texts are taken quite literally by millions of Christians, which includes the description of how the earth came into being. Many of those Christians are also scientists.

Given the fact that humans cannot discern between that which is good or bad or right or wrong from scientific data, nor make daily decisions on the basis of statistical information, the Bible’s perspectives and credible logic outweigh any science when moral dilemmas come into question and the question of life and death is considered. No one will recall the geology and biology exams they studied hard to pass, but most all of us remember the love we shared with others and the decisions we’ve made from a foundation of belief in something more powerful than ourselves.

The LA Times editors apparently have difficulty coming to terms with their own beliefs, as well as determining what is, and is not, a fact. The fact is the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, as the Times editors suggest, is a consensus among “credible” scientists. In fact, scientists estimate everything. Nothing is absolute for them.

About Mike Green

  • SteveS

    SteveS#45. Most people who believe in evolution also believe in a soul. WHY?

    Because most evolutionists in this country are Christians. Does that surprise you? Get out more.

    If creation became a proven fact would it put a crimp on your life style?

    No, because I am a baptized Christian. I have accepted Jesus into my life. But that doesn’t require me to take the Bible literally.

    Lets put that in perspective. Would you rather believe in evolution over creation and why.

    Because there is nothing to support creationism and there is enough data to support evolution to fill up the library of Congress. Even the Pope (the last Pope) came out in support of evolution.

    So I would rather support reality over fantasy because God gave me a brain with which to think for myself.

    Next question?

  • zingzing

    “If creation became a proven fact would it put a crimp on your life style?”

    oh, hell yeah, it would. i’d be frightened for my imortal soul. hell (and the basic threat of “you don’t believe in hell, therefore you will go there,”) is a pretty scary thought. but i don’t dwell on it. (i’m assuming you are talking about the christian version of creation, because there are lots of versions, and my reaction would differ if another culture’s creation myth proved correct.)

    if some unknowable being created the universe long ago, i’ll probably never know about it anyway.

    “Would you rather believe in evolution over creation and why.”

    not really. evolution doesn’t real touch on the afterlife question… but i do have to logically conclude that once i’m dead there isn’t much left to do but rot. that doesn’t sound too fun. but, whatever. i’m not fooling myself.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Carl Sagan speculated that if there were a creator, he/she/it/they might leave some kind of signature deeply embedded in the fabric of the universe, in such a way that it could be found and interpreted for what it was by a civilization sufficiently advanced to be able to cope with the information in a mature fashion. For example, you might be calculating pi to trillions of decimal places and suddenly come across a recognizable pattern, a regular, logical sequence of digits not explainable by chance – a code.

    Or more likely – since we are a mere Stage Zero civilization – something far cleverer than that.

    Such a being would be a far cry from the Christian God, so unfortunately that notion ain’t going to fly with creationists either.

  • SteveS

    oh, hell yeah, it would. i’d be frightened for my imortal soul.

    This type of talk motivates them zingzing, it’s what they want to hear. If you don’t harm other people and respect others, there isn’t much else to change.

    You smoke? (rhetorical, don’t answer) God doesn’t forbid that. You drink? Switch to wine and you’re fine. There isn’t much to change if you respect other humans.

    It’s important to point out that the faithful are not the only ones who are moral. They seem to think men are animals who need fear to keep us in line, that if we were free to be ourselves we would be savages, but then want us to believe that we are spiritually made “in God’s image”, and they don’t put two and two together.

    Carl Sagan speculated that if there were a creator, he/she/it/they might leave some kind of signature

    Wouldn’t that imply vanity?

  • zingzing

    “This type of talk motivates them zingzing, it’s what they want to hear. If you don’t harm other people and respect others, there isn’t much else to change.”

    i’m not a highly moral person. i’ve been a bad boy in my time. i have never harmed any other person… well, that’s not true… and i have done things that caused other people pain out of selfishness. i curse, i blaspheme, i drink copious amounts of liquor and i’m sure most any god would be rather appalled at what i have put in my body… i can be intentionally cruel, i masturbate and have premarital sex at alarming rates… let me see… i have broken several of the commandments… most of them, i would say. i’m sure there’s some christian loophole that puts me in hell. but i would have a hard time believing in such a cruel god. merciful? read your bible.

    overall, however, i am a very moral person who believes in the dignity and freedom of other people. i just don’t apply such things to myself.

  • zingzing

    hmm. i tend to contradict myself. (much like the bible!–blasphemy!)

    i dunno how i can explain that.

  • SteveS

    That’s not what I mean, but I get your point. There are religions like some of the Native American ones that think you need to take halluceno….halluc… er, peyote in order to have spiritual visions. And most Christians will tell you that the commandment against masterbation was when it was important to populate the earth. Now that we are up to 9 billion, masterbation may end up being a requirement soon.

    I am cut off by rude drivers all the time. People swear and shove in malls. People call each other names and hurt feelings in high school. Being intentionally cruel and selfish is common in this country, not that it’s right but it’s common. And fundamentalists will tell you that the majority of people in this country are Christians so ergo…the majority of those that do this behavior believe in God.

    This is my point. Instilling a fear of the afterworld into people in order to get them to modify behavior hasn’t worked so far, so let’s not give them that one because it’s already proven to be a falsehood.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Wouldn’t that imply vanity?

    Vanity is a human emotion. My cat announces his presence to other cats by occasionally (the little bastard) spraying urine on the front door. That’s not vanity, just ‘here I am’.

  • SteveS

    Good point and it may even explain that foul odor coming from Polarissima Borealis.

  • sr

    I dont give a hoot about the pope. He’s just a dude like us except he wears tons of gold on is head. The vicar for Christ my ass. SteveS next question. Heck if I know. What question would you like me to ask? Carl Sagan was a fool and talked like he had a banna up is rear end. I never made mention concerning a christian God. I just asked a question.

  • Lee Richards

    No one will ever be able to persuade Mike to change his mind;you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reach by reasoning in the first place.

    His mind was closed when he decided to accept the revelations of the Bible as the end all and be all. Of course, that’s not quite true, because he does pick and choose which parts of “God’s holy word” still apply to Christians. Interesting that the Bible is supposed to be our revealed source of truth, knowledge and morals, and show the way to salvation, but Mike says we don’t have to actually follow ALL of it anymore (just the parts he likes and agrees with.)

    If he were to try ever again to think for himself rather than just blindly believe and follow all of the myths, metaphors, and figurative language of a book filled mostly with fictional characters and symbolic stories, he might see that:

    Some statements–facts, scientific theories–can be true or false because they are empirical, observeable, demonstrable, or objective propositions. Since they can be shown to be true or false, they constitute what we know. (And, yes, it does take time, evidence, and a lot of work and thought to separate true from false.)

    Some statements are neither true nor false, such as propositions about love, hope, taste. They’re not “knowledge” as we generally understand the term;they can’t be shown to be true or false propositions that convey the same meaning to everyone.

    Some statements give us no way to discern whether they are true or false, such as propositions about gods, man-gods, heaven, supernatural forces. Such statements depend only on faith and are NOT knowledge(although their followers are always convinced they are the highest order of knowledge.) Saying “the Bible says so” is a subjective declaration of belief, without a shred of proof of the proposition.

    Confusing knowledge and faith has proven to be one of the most costly mistakes in all human history, and creationists want to replay it again in America. Mike doesn’t need any proof what for he believes;his mind was made up without any. He now relies on sophistry to try to disguise that true fact.

  • sr

    Mr. Richards do you think Mike should throw is stupid bible in the trash and get educated as yourself?

  • Lee Richards

    What Mike does with his Bible is up to him but, yes, I think everybody should get educated.

  • SteveS

    SteveS next question. Heck if I know. What question would you like me to ask?

    It was rhetorical. Evolutionists are not anti-God. The majority of evolutionists believe in a God.

    We have the Theory of Relativity being taught in school. We have the Theory of Gravity being taught in school. Both are theories, both are unproven. Both are unchallenged in school board battles across the nation.

    Only ONE theory is being challenged, and that is the theory that they perceive as conflicting with the story of Creation in the Bible.

    The whole motive behind this Creationism drive, sr, is fear. Unfounded fears that a lifelong belief system will be proven false.

    Evolution is not anti-God, nor does it teach that we are souless, nor does it delve into any afterlife. It simply covers the ‘how’ of life, not the ‘why’.

  • sr

    SteveS#51. One thing I do know sir is never get into discussions over politics and religion. Does Christions beliveing in evolution surprise me. Of course not. It’s called theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. Sure I should get out more, however, I’m afraid to leave the confines of my cave. I do not call myself a Christian nor am I worthy of being a Christian. Very seldom do I pick up a bible let alone read it. Due to your comment which I sincerely thank you for, I read something from Genesis today. This is from Genesis 2 verse 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful,and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: In Genesis 2 verse 26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Now not being a student of the bible by any means this is what perplexis me. In saying “our,” did God tell this to primordial scum that wouldn’t know a roll of toilet paper from the library of congress, did he say it to Adam and Eve after they evolved millions of years later and had an understanding of lanquage, or did God tell the scum to stay out of the fruit trees. I know Adam and Eve are just a fantasy and so do you, and I also think the Bible is a fantasy. So my dear sir, why are you a Christian? As for what the pope belives, Frankly Scarlett I dont give a damn.

  • SteveS

    One thing I do know sir is never get into discussions over politics and religion.

    But then what do you discuss here at BC?

    So my dear sir, why are you a Christian?

    There is faith/spirituality, and there is religion. They are as different as night and day. This thread really isn’t the place to discuss my theology, but quickly, since I do discuss religion on the appropriate threads here, I was raised a Christian and I do believe in the Christian principles. I also believe that God gave us free will and the ability to think for ourselves.

    I think organized religion runs counter to that, so I do not go to a church. I don’t pray before every meal, nor do I clasp my hands and pray at night. I don’t believe in fire and brimstone and Adam and Eve. I believe these are like psalms or parables for us.

    Organized religion is handing your beliefs over to another to shape and mold, and that certainly isn’t what ANY diety would want. Organized religion is evil, and always causes oppression and suffering in the world. There is not one instance where it does not.

    A person’s faith belongs to him and him alone and any society built on faith is a society of oppression. Never has it been otherwise.

    And that is why I always fight people who would instill their beliefs in the public square.

    I do not believe in Creationism, and I know it for what it is, nothing more than a belief system, which has no place in science or the public school system.

    You can tell when a person’s faith is their own, or when it is dictated to them by others, for when it is put on trial, it is the latter who feel persecuted and attacked.

  • sr

    Dear SteveS. That was the answer I expected from you knowing you never would answer the questions I asked you. Lets just call it a night. Many years ago this man told me he was about to get in a fight and told the other man just go tell your friends you kicked my ass and I’ll tell my friends I kicked your ass. No blood shed. Makes sence to me. Take care my friend and have a great weekend.

  • SteveS

    I believe I answered your questions. If there is one I missed, feel free to point it out.

    Where I come from, debate and disagreement do not equal fighting, but then again I’m not a Creationist, so perhaps that’s where the lines of communication break down. For them it’s pretty clear that disagreement or debate = attack and fighting.

  • sr

    Goodnight Sir.

  • sr

    Another day SteveS. My question as I stated was concerning Genesis,verses 26 and 28 and I wanted you to respond to the question that perplexis me. You know, Adam and Eve and the scum thing. Simple enough dont you think. In other words was this God speaking to scum or did he wait for Adam and Eve to evolve and speak to them. Of course this all depends on your trust if the bible is the word of God or should it be used in your outhouse like a Sears catalog. Of course you may perfer corncobs like me. Except you cant read corncobs doing your duty. Later dude.

  • MBD


    In #65 you refer to Genesis 2 verse 26. Chapter 26 doesn’t exist.

    The last verses in Chapter 2 are 24 and 25:

    “24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”

    In #70 you refer to Genesis 26-28. That doesn’t make any sense in this context.

    It reads:

    “26 Meanwhile, Abimelech had come to him from Gerar, with Ahuzzath his personal adviser and Phicol the commander of his forces. 27 Isaac asked them, “Why have you come to me, since you were hostile to me and sent me away?” 28 They answered, “We saw clearly that the Lord was with you; so we said, ‘There ought to be a sworn agreement between us’–between us and you. Let us make a treaty with you.”

    Perhaps these references make sense in the bible you wrote.

  • sr

    MBD, Your right dude. My mistake. Genesis 1 verse 26 and Genesis 1 verse 28. Sorry about that to all I have cofused including SteveS. Like I said Im no student of the bible. MBD thank you for pointing this out to me. Sincerely, sr

  • sr

    My comment#65 should be corrected from Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 but still the same verses. 26 and 28. Sorry about that SteveS. Now I understand your confusion. The rest of my comment is still good to go. Thank MBD for pointing this out to me.
    Hey blogcritics why dont you correct this for me. Im not about to type this again. If you do I’ll send you a free bible and cookies.

  • SteveS

    Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn’t the numbers of the chapters that confused me. I didn’t know that was an actual question, I thought it was rhetorical.

    You are asking me if God was talking to scum or Adam and Eve. This is the question?

    The answer is neither, because:

    1) Adam and Eve are a parable or a fable, or as you put it, a fantasy. They never existed. We evolved.

    2) God never talked to anybody. That part of the bible is no more literal than the whole 6 day thing. It’s odd that God talked to everybody in the Bible on an almost daily basis, either by burning bush or by blasting his cliff notes into the mountainside or whatever but then just quit talking to humans?

    The answer to your question is none of the above, sr. I am not a literalist. God did not write the bible, humans did. Fallible humans. We can use the Bible to guide us, but not to dictate to us verbatim.

    I hope I answered your question now. If you really want to know who he was actually talking to, then you will need to ask someone who believes the bible literally. That would not be me, nor would it be a Creationist, as they only take Creation literally but pick and choose parts of the rest of the bible.

  • MBD

    “Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn’t the numbers of the chapters that confused me.”

    No. It’s just everything else.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Comments #65 through #75:

    …And sr’s work is done.

    Steve and MBD, by this time you should really see him coming.

  • Clavos

    Props to Dr. D. for #76.

  • SteveS

    It does seem that legitimate discussion is discouraged by some now, and that others want to just make comments but not debate anymore. Is that why this site is much slower than a few years ago?

  • sr

    SteveS. Just one thing. You say your are a born again Christian. How in the world did you arrive at this. Most people say Jesus is a fable/fantasy. That being true how can you be a Christian. This is not logical. Im confused. I also dont know about God talking to anyone. I wasen’t their. Like I said if God didn’t write the bible put in in your outhouse. Why would you put your trust in what man writes. Why should I put my trust in this thread. Why would anyone in their right mind put their trust in fallible humans and use the bible as a guide. A guide for what? Just trust me SteveS. I’ll be glad to guide you. I am all knowing. Doc and Clavos, my work is not done. I rest on the seventh day funny men. MBD stopped being confused and thanks again. I put my trust in guns and gold. Lets go hunting boys and girls.

  • SteveS

    No, not a born again Christian, I don’t recall ever saying that. If I did, I must have been having a vision.

    I was raised as a Christian and on true Christian principles, and I have my own faith. I do not go to church as I do not believe in organized religion.

    I can’t comment on the other thread anymore, it won’t load for me for some problem, once it gets up to about 190 comments. However this could be proof of evolution:

    Monkeys can comprehend economics and use money for sex.

    …During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

  • MBD

    #74 — June 3, 2007 @ 23:59PM — SteveS

    Steve S commented…

    “Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn’t the numbers of the chapters that confused me. I didn’t know that was an actual question, I thought it was rhetorical.”

    #75 — June 4, 2007 @ 00:09AM — MBD

    MBD responded…

    “Oh, sr, now I understand. No, it wasn’t the numbers of the chapters that confused me.”

    No. It’s just everything else.

    #79 — June 4, 2007 @ 18:11PM

    sr interjected…

    “MBD stopped being confused”

    sr couldn’t comprehend who said what to whom…

    Let’s see if sr can figure it out now.

  • sr

    SteveS. I hate freaking monkeys. Where I live in Florida the Rhesus monkeys run all over the forest and bite the crap out of you. I have shot many of the little shits. Come to Florida and I’ll take you hunting for the varmits. If your not into hunting you can toss them a few grapes.

  • sr


  • sr

    If Adam and Eve were created as adult’s did they have a belly button or a need for one? Should you not believe they were created and your belief is in the theroy of evolution their would be no need to respond.

  • Elroy Balgaard

    Wondering if Adam and Eve had belly buttons, is a smaller hoop to jump through than a lizard giving birth to a bird.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #85: So that’s what lies behind creationism: intellectual laziness.

  • sr

    Doc, that’s the best ammo you have. Intellectual laziness. You truly are a funny guy.

  • Brian Fraser

    The debate needs new titles. Call Evolution, “Theory of gradual appearance of life” and Creation, “Theory of sudden appearance of life”.

    What would you do with “Scriptural Physics”? Is it science or religion? It offers valuable insights in physics. Should students be “exposed” to it or “protected” from it?

  • sr