Why do alternatives to Evolution seem to receive so little focus in the mainstream media?

Question

I'm curious why there never seem to be any references made to findings and/or discoveries made that counter, challenge and/or refute Darwin's theory in the mainstream media. Please don't tell me that "these don't exist", because I've found quite a few while searching online (some are hokey, true, but some are very convincing, at least to the point that I have to wonder why these reports don't appear in the mainstream news.)
Why does the media seem so slanted towards exlusively supporting Evolution without ever focusining on alternative teachings?

B H - the attack on religion wasn't necessary (and why is it always Christianity attacked? Christianity isn't the only religion to teach alternatives to evolution.)

Anyhow, here's one "secular" link challenging Darwinism:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?pg=5&topic=evolution&topic_set=

Here's another that posts archaeological finds that contradict Darwin. Again, non-religious:

http://www.mcremo.com/

Answer 1

Evolution is about scientific comparism and research. Most people who are open minded and actually try to understand scientific pursuits (as well as most scientists) don't just believe it because some egg head decided evolution is the answer. Science must be proveable or it is simply belief. If you believe certain things, it's your right. But the second you try to propose your belief as fact, you must prove it. Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because it can be shown to exist...you cannot show me that God created all life about 5,000 years ago (as it states in Genesis). The scientific community (as a whole) is also very careful to not make assumptions and does not go about looking for clues only to prove their private belief. Sure, scientists have had certain theories and tried to prove it, but the whole community is not looking for answers to a central question, such as divine intervention. Crack pots in the mainstream scientific community are eventually ferreted out...the current central ideas shared by the community change over time as new facts come in. The so called "liberal media" is a reflection of society, not the other way around.
A case in point is "string theory", it is unproveable every bit as much (at this time at least, because instruments are not powerful enough) as any belief...so I consider it in the same catagory as a religious belief.

I personally believe in a Divine Being, but will not accept that bones of dinosaurs were from creatures from 5000 years ago. Evolution does not cause me to doubt that God exists, The Bible was created by men 2000-4000 years ago to explain things to people, you should be careful in interpreting what the Bible has to say or believing someone when he says that he knows exactly what the Bible means...Is your faith so fragile that if you were shown positive, undeniable proof that evolution was real your whole world would crumble. I don't think a man named Adam was created out of clay...I see it figuratively...that Man was created by God in some way...A God would be pretty powerful, a few billion years nothing...why not give God credit for evolution and move on. But that also brings up divine intervention (see the end for more)

I have heard of Creation "scientists" making claims proving their belief, but the evidence is extremely sketchy and does not look for other reasons for their evidence...it kinda fits their theory, so they stop looking. If what they find somehow poses a possibility that would be hard to deny, I am sure that it would be more mainstreamed...but the people you hear it from are probably ministers or pastors in their sermons...their evidence fades in the light of srutiny. When real science show the bones of an ancient hominid, the creation scientists would have a difficult time explaining it in terms of Creationism to me. You can't just keep the evidence that fits your theory and throw out everything else.

Intelligent Design is also similar to Creationism, because it involves the actual intervention of God in order for everything to advance or exist...that can't be proven either and is not science...it uses science, but the central part, the driving force, is God...how do you know he involved Himself in that...do you have proof...This should not be taught in school, because it invades other people's beliefs...believe it yourself, or study it in private school...let's just stick to facts when we are involved in science,,,believe in God in your own way, don't make a belief system into science without proof. I'd like to see this evidence you have.

I looked at your site, about what i expected, no smoking gun, lots of talk about how evolution is wrong (they pick it apart, take one aspect that probably is conjecture and from that determine that the rest is wrong from that...and ignore the rest of the facts, ideas and evidence...because it doesn't support their theory) What you see on those sites is not science...it's a lot of opinion that uses anything that supports their view only. They have a few artifacts that "might be" real. They were dug up by miners and landed in some collection...a small handfull that might have been natural or might be a hoax...they only showed sketches, not even photos. They base their argument on a very small amount of evidence...very sketchy. they are grasping at straws.

No science would look at a line of reasoning about evidence and throw it out because they don't agree with every bit of it, they would use it as a springboard to further understanding, not just say it was propaganda and throw what most scientist believe out...they need to prove their evidence to the scientific community like anyone else. If your evidence is real, it will stand scrutiny, but I saw no evidence even offered, just opinion. Show me evidence of God's hand...do real science show proof and evidence...you have shown nothing but opinion.

Ther is another point. The current theory of Evolution is not 100% correct, it is just what can be studied or understood from evidence now...science is about learning and being curious, not accepting one answer and grinding to a halt. The opinions on your site tore into evolution as if everything had to be fully explained. when somehthing doesn't work in a theory you set it aside and re-examine everything, look at all the evidence, and try to find new evidence. the theory is always being fine tuned to match the evidence (not the other way around)..it's not the theory of evolution that Creationists are attacking...it is the evidence itself, massive amounts of it filling museums around the world.


the site you gave were not unaffiliated with some religious group, they may not have put their name to them, but you can bet they support the site.

Answer 2

The media does not focus on other alternatives to evolution for the same reason why the media does not focus on alternatives to a round Earth or alternatives to earth not being the center of the universe- it has the most legitimate scientific evidence in it's favor.

The Earth is not flat. The Earth is not the center of the universe. Most evidence at this time points to the fact that evolution is the correct theory. Sorry fundies.

Answer 3

Because it's the media, and they only report what they want and what they think their audience wants to hear. Mainstream media thinks that people are just not interested in opponents to evolution, unless you are talking about religion. It's just the same reason why the media does everything it does, they want to appeal to a bigger audience, but in the process they decide what is and isn't news.

It's like their coverage during election times (sorry to bring in politics) but they rarely focus on all the issues at hand. They pick one or two things which may or may not be related to the real issues and dwell on those.

Answer 4

Because religion, the only alternative to evolution, is a limited concept written in a book that was written by man. People already interpret that book in pretty much any way they see fit to comply with changing culture (7-days = 6,000 years = millions of years?).

However, the science of evolution continues to explore, learn, define, comprehend, and understand the very nature of human existence. So, new discoveries get a little press and the religious freaks go nuts and start preaching and yelling about unfair representation. Too bad.

Prove the ark existed, prove adam and eve (not capitalized on purpose - does not deserve caps) exists, prove the bible is correct. Can't? Well, then keep you faith (defined as belief in something that can't be proven) and keep your mouth shut.

Answer 5

All right, let's get this straight. You trust some balding nerd who has the imagination to photoshop a wood carving showing animals coming into existance within monents (I'm not talking about the bible) more than fossil records and DNA evidence?

The media doesn't want to give those people the attention that they crave. Because that's the only reason why they make up this stuff. If anyone has sources for "alternatives", I'd love to check them out.

Answer 6

That's a very good question...

The best idea I have is that in the past, when politicians have tried to advocate other ideas, evolutionists have succeeded in absolutely humiliating whoever tries to do so, and thus, they no longer try. I know events have happened in the past...

Honestly, I have no idea if that's the reason or not, but that's the best I could come up with, without resorting to things like 'Evolutionists control the Media!' or stuff like that, lol.

Answer 7

Because the media is run by Liberal extremists who only report what promotes their own political and social agenda. Anything contrary to that agenda is treated as false, not matter how convincing it may be. These are the people who claim to be "open-minded", "tolerant", and "against censorship". However, any ideas contrary to their belief system are silenced immediately. They believe that "Freedom of the Press" means the the Press is free to do whatever it wants, no matter how unethical or unprofessional. Liberals believe that "Freedom of Speech" only applies to those who agree with them. All other "unacceptable thought" must be crushed. The media knows that most people have been taught to trust them, so they stay in power by keeping the people ignorant. They are so obsessed with their agenda that they just soldier on blindly for "the cause", never letting the facts get in their way. Their belief system is so flawed, that they must keep all others silent in order to maintain their hold on popular thought.

Answer 8

Because the media is one sided on most issues in general. Like the whole "its ten at night, do you know where your kids are" bs. Pssh! I don't need some godvoice on tv telling me how to raise my nonexistent kids!!