Leftist pundit Bill Press, a political commentator for MSNBC, has weighed in on the Cobb County, Georgia, evolution controversy. Press begins by assailing the 1925 Scopes Trial: “The debate over evolution in public schools should have ended right then and there—or, if not, in 1968, when the Supreme Court finally ruled that banning evolution and teaching creationism violated the First Amendment by endorsing one religion over another.” On one point, I agree with Press: The battle over evolution should have ended in 1925. Christians should have seen the writing on the wall and abandoned the government schools “right then and there.” Can you imagine where we would be today if the Christian school movement had started 80 years ago? But I digress.
Press offers the following arguments against creation and how creation and evolution are compatible. He states, (1) “The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The earth is not flat. The earth is not the center of the universe. The sun does not literally rise.” I don’t know anyone who claims the Bible is a science textbook in the sense that it sets forth a science curriculum. The history of modern science is the history of Christian scientists. Christian scientists believed in a world that was governed by fixed laws which made science possible. Please tell me. Mr. Press, in what non-Christian nations did science develop as it has in the Christian West? Science historian Stanley Jaki comments:
[Ancient cultures] are all dominated by the belief that everything will repeat itself to no end, or by the idea of eternal returns. Only on occasion does one hear about this. One hardly ever hears that this belief was responsible for the fact that science suffered a stillbirth, indeed a monumental stillbirth, in all ancient cultures. I coined this phrase, the stillbirths of science, about thirty years ago. The phrase certainly did not catch on in secular academia. The reason is obvious. Nothing irks the secular world so much as a hint, let alone a scholarly demonstration, that supernatural revelation, as registered in the Bible, is germane to science. Yet biblical revelation is not only germane to science—it made the only viable birth of science possible. That birth took place in a once-Christian West.
Contrary to Darwin, the Bible does tell us that man—male and female—are a direct creation by God, something that the history department in any high school must acknowledge when the Declaration of Independence is studied: “We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” But Judge Clarence Cooper’s ruling is emphatic that God and creation must not be mentioned with the discussion of origins. There is no other way to read his decision.
Keep in mind the nature of the argument in Cobb County. There are parents, backed up by competent scientists, who do not believe evolution is a proven theory in the way gravity is a proven theory. There are many scientists who find numerous biological, philosophical, and logical problems with the Darwinian paradigm. The so-called evidence does not fit the theory. That’s why the theory is in constant flux. In an attempt to make a case against the Bible, Press pulls out the “flat earth” myth. Christians never taught that the earth was flat. Columbus was not a pioneer of a round-earth hypothesis. Everyone in Columbus’ day knew the earth was round. The dispute was over how big around it was. Press also wants to blame geocentricity—an earth-centered solar system—on the Bible and Christian theologians. It was Aristotle who proposed a geocentric universe not Christians. It’s unfortunate that Christian scholars, along with everybody else, adopted an Aristotelian cosmology over empirical science. In theological terms, as the Bible presents the issue, the earth is the center of the universe. It’s where God created us. So far, science hasn’t found anything comparable, and they’ve spent billions of dollars trying.
The Bible describes life in terms of man and the earth he lives on. While the sun does not rise, it seems as if it does given the reference point of those standing on the earth. A more nuanced approach would be scientifically accurate but awkward and unnecessary:
Consider. If I say, “The sun rose at 6:01 this morning,” that statement is perfectly true and communicates perfectly what is meant. I can also say something more precise, like: “At exactly 6:01:49 A.M., Greenwich Mean Time, the horizon of the earth dropped to reveal the upper tip of the sun as observed from 41N14’22.18" latitude and 55N21’45.44" longitude.” This second statement is more precise, but not more true than the previous one. We understand the first statement perfectly well. (see full article)
Do evolutionists like Press actually believe that this is the way the biblical writers should have expressed themselves when they observed the sun? If so, why don’t we use precise heliocentric language today since we moderns are so scientifically sophisticated? Check your local newspaper. It still tells you the time when the sun will rise and set. So as not to go to far astray, the argument in Cobb County is simply to call into question the scientific dogmatism of evolution. Press is attempting to poison the well with his prejudicial claims of medievalism.
Press begs the question when he states (2) “Evolution is a proven scientific fact. There is simply too much evidence to ignore.” Of course, this is what the debate is all about. There are many trained scientists who would dispute Press on his assertion. To show how ignorant he is on evolutionary theory, Press claims that “evolution and the process of natural selection, in fact, are sill going on before our very eyes—as scientists have observed among finches in the Galapagos Islands.” This is a bold claim, but it demonstrates that Press doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If such a thing could be demonstrated in a classroom, the debate would be over. In an effort to prove his point, he references the beaks of finches. A finch is a finch is a finch, whether it has a small beak or a large beak. Finches will always be finches. Finch beaks change in size relative to food supply and weather conditions. The amount of change varies only slightly so that there is no appreciable change in the size of a finch’s beak over time. The same is true of humans. I’m much bigger than my parents, and my children don’t have the thick bone structure I have. Is this evolution in action? Evolutionists extrapolate from a small change into ever increasing changes over long periods of time. This has never been observed, either in finches or people. Darwin’s finches are no different today than they were 150 years ago when he first observed them.
Press moves on to deny the governing hypothesis of evolutionists who are driving the debate. He claims (3) that “there is no contradiction between evolution and belief in God. Evolution does not deny the existence of God; science is just trying to figure out what God has already accomplished.” What well-known evolutionary scientist is saying this? You might find some Christians who believe this, but Carl Sagan never believed it. Neither did Stephen Jay Gould. Arthur C. Clarke, a raving lunatic when it comes to God and creation, would cringe at Press’s assertion that God and any type of evolution are compatible. So would Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, and Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker. Dennett has been described as an “evangelical atheist.” He is not content to keep his beliefs personal. He is an atheistic proselytizer. He considers himself to be one of the “Brights.” Brights have “a naturalistic worldview, free from supernatural and mystical forces.” Dawkins holds a similar position in the First Church of Darwin. Darwinism is atheism.
Steve Frenkel, in a letter published in the Marietta Daily Journal,a newspaper that serves Cobb County, follows an argument similar to that of Bill Press: “Evolution is simply a mechanism our Creator used and continues to use.” No teacher, given Judge Clarence Cooper’s ruling, could make this statement in the science classroom. Like Press, Frenkel is not at all familiar with evolutionary literature.
Like so many liberals today, God is being used to push an immoral and, in the case of evolution, an atheistic agenda. Press quotes Galileo as a champion of his pro-evolution cause: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” This is exactly what the evolutionary despots are doing. Evolution is a fact, and you dare not question it. Well, we have good reason to question the dogmatism of evolution, especially when someone claims that it’s happening right before our eyes! If this is the case, then show us. Put up or shut up.
 Bill Press, “Cobb school board proves Darwin was wrong?, Marietta daily Journal (January 24, 2005), 7A.
 Stanley Jaki, “The Biblical Basis of Western Science,” Crisis 15:9 (October 1997): 17–20. www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0005.html
 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 200), 159–175.
 Clarke describes creationism as one of his “pet hates,” “perhaps the most pernicious of the intellectual perversions now afflicting the American public. Though I am the last person to advocate laws against blasphemy, surely nothing could be more antireligious than to deny the evidence so clearly written in the rocks for all who have eyes to see!” (Arthur C. Clarke, “Foreword,” in James Randi, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995], xii–xiii).
 Steve Frenkel, “Fossils not part of cosmic joke by God,” Marietta Daily Journal (January 23, 2005).