The Bias Against God, Part 2

The issue of bias against creation in mainstream journals, and even centers of higher-learning, is one of double-standards, where evidence that contradicts the mainstream notions of our origins are criticized or excluded from inquiry, while the flawed naturalistic model is accepted outright for its omission of the supernatural…

There is no room for creation, and no alternatives are allowed to exist. Exclusion from peer-reviewed publications and institutions of learning are unfortunate, as many who would value such inclusions are left with the mainstream model alone, and at best a condemnation of creation and its adherents. That fact alone, for many, is justification for their own bias against creation, thus continuing a vicious cycle of mainstream prejudice against any form of design, especially that where religion or God is invoked.

What’s more is that there are those among the mainstream who actively call for secular researchers to limit interactions with creationists. As one said, “Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.”¹

Excluded from the mainstream, dedicated creation researchers are largely forced to publish within their own community, finding peer-review where their contentions are accepted or rejected on their validity as good science, not on an ideological bias. As these communities of researchers are openly criticized and condemned by the mainstream, their findings are subsequently ignored by all but those who recognize the implications of the work. This, you see, is why any given evidence for creation is typically lacking from discussion in mainstream circles.

The hypocrisy goes deeper than just journals however. As one observer said of the matter:

“Anyone who questions man’s reasoning, particularly on the origin of the physical world, faces an arrogance almost beyond comprehension. Many scientists realize the weak underpinnings of scientific models but the spokesmen of naturalism and their media advocates will not abide anything that questions either the supremacy of man, his reasoning power or his conclusions.”²

Furthermore, the bias of the secular authorities is no doubt passed on through the ranks, infiltrating the public at every level. We can see this with painful clarity with education system’s undeniable reliance on strict naturalism, for it is certainly a contributing factor in the growing opposition to faith we see in America and abroad. Children are forced into particular worldviews for years, being reared along ideological pathways that inherently reject the supernatural and support only a materialistic philosophy. As they grow, reaching the period in life where they begin to make sense of the world around them, oftentimes they find whatever religious backgrounds they may possess incompatible with the “truths” instilled within them by their teachers, leaders, and social environment.

Faced with a decision, only three paths are open to them: reject God, reject naturalism, or descend into apathy.


  1. Scott, Eugenie, “Fighting Talk,” New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47
  2. Williams, Dr. Emmett, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29(2):84, September 1992


Subscribe to the blog here at WordPress, like us on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter at @FOUNDRY_4

FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation

The IAC Logo


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s