http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=682
Creation's Critics Countered
INTRODUCTION
There was a time when creationists were considered to be on the
“peripheral fringe”—few in number and not to be considered as much of a
threat. Those days, however, have long since passed. With the
publication in 1961 by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris of the
classic text,
The Genesis Flood, interest in creation began to
flourish. The formation of the Creation Research Society in 1963
heightened that interest. The establishment, in 1970, of the Institute
for Creation Research added additional impetus to the creation movement.
Today there are scores of creationist organizations—local, regional,
national, and even international—all of which are working to make
creation a popular alternative to the theory of evolution.
There is clear evidence that these combined efforts are having a
serious impact. Consider, for example, the following. In a
center-column, front-page article in the June 15, 1979 issue of the
Wall Street Journal, there appeared an article by one of the
Journal’s
staff writers commenting on how creationists, when engaging in debates
with evolutionists, “tend to win” the debates, and that creationism was
“making progress.” In 1979, Gallup pollsters conducted a random survey,
inquiring about belief in creation versus evolution. The poll had been
commissioned by
Christianity Today magazine, and was reported in
its December 21, 1979 issue. This poll found that 51% of Americans
believe in the special creation of a literal Adam and Eve as the
starting place of human life. In the March 1980 issue of the
American School Board Journal
(p. 52), it was reported that 67% of its readers (most of whom were
school board members and school administrators) favored the teaching of
the scientific evidence for creation in public schools.
Glamour
magazine conducted a poll of its own and reported the results in its
August 1982 issue (p. 28). The magazine found that 74% of its readers
favored teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools.
One of the most authoritative polls was conducted in October 1981 by
the Associated Press/
NBCNews polling organization. The results were as follows:
| Only evolution should be taught |
8% |
| Only creation should be taught |
10% |
| Both creation and evolution should be taught |
76% |
| Not sure which should be taught |
6% |
Thus, nationwide no less than 86% of the people in the United States
believe that creation should be taught in public schools. In August
1982, another Gallup poll was conducted, and found that 44% of those
interviewed believed not only in creation, but in a recent creation of
less than 10,000 years ago. Only 9% of the people polled believed in
atheistic evolution.
On November 28, 1991 results were released from yet another Gallup poll
regarding the biblical account of origins. The results may be
summarized as follows. On origins: 47% believed God created man within
the last 10,000 years (up 3% from the 1982 poll mentioned above); 40%
believed man evolved over millions of years, but that God guided the
process; 9% believed man evolved over millions of years without God; 4%
were “other/don’t know.” On the Bible: 32% believed the Bible to be the
inspired Word of God, and that it should be taken literally; 49%
believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, but that it should
not always be taken literally; 16% believed the Bible to be entirely the
product of men; 3% were “other/don’t know” (see Major, 1991, 11:48;
John Morris, 1992, p. d). Two years later, a Gallup poll carried out in
1993 produced almost the same results. Of those responding, 47% stated
that they believed in a recent creation of man; 11% expressed their
belief in a strictly naturalistic form of evolution (see Newport, 1993,
p. A-22). Four years after that poll, a 1997 Gallup survey found that
44% of Americans (including 31% who were college graduates) subscribed
to a fairly literal reading of the Genesis account of creation, while
another 39% (53% of whom were college graduates) believed God played at
least some part in creating the Universe. Only 10% (17% college
graduates) embraced a purely naturalistic, evolutionary view (see
Bishop, 1998, pp. 39-48; Sheler, 1999, pp. 48-49). The results of a
Gallup poll released in August 1999 were practically identical: 47%
stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 9% expressed
belief in strictly naturalistic evolution (see Moore, 1999).
In its March 11, 2000 issue, the
New York Times ran a story
titled “Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories,”
which reported on a poll commissioned by the liberal civil rights group,
People for the American Way, and conducted by the prestigious
polling/public research firm,
DYG, of Danbury,
Connecticut. According to the report, 79% of the people polled felt that
the scientific evidence for creation should be included in the
curriculum of public schools (see Glanz, 2000, p. A-1).
The amazing thing about all of this, of course, is that these results are being achieved
after more than a century of evolutionary indoctrination.
Evolutionists, needless to say, have not been pleased with the obvious
failure of their efforts at indoctrinating the American public. As a
result, an “anti-creationist hysteria” is in full-swing. Resolutions
against creationism are being passed, pro-evolution pamphlets are being
distributed, “committees of correspondence” are being formed, debates
with creationists are being scorned (so that the creationists no longer
can “tend to win” and make evolutionists look bad), and anti-creationist
books are issuing from the presses at an unprecedented rate. For
example, in 1977 the American Humanist Association fired a major salvo
by publishing a
Manifesto affirming evolution as “firmly established in the view of the modern scientific community” (see
The Humanist,
1977, 37:4-5). Following that, Dorothy Nelkin, a professor of sociology
at Cornell University, published the first of what became a series of
anti-creationist books when she wrote
Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977).
Since then, a lengthy list of such books can be documented. As samples, I might list such volumes as: (1)
The Darwinian Revolution by Michael Ruse (1979); (2)
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Philip Kitcher (1982); (3)
The Monkey Business by Niles Eldredge (1982); (4)
Scientists Confront Creationism, edited by Laurie Godfrey (1983); (5)
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma (1983); (6)
Science and Creationism, edited by Ashley Montagu (1984); (7)
Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality? by Norman D. Newell (1985) (8)
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (1986); (9)
Science and Creation by Robert W. Hanson (1986); (10)
Cult Archaeology and Creationism by Francis B. Harrold and Raymond A. Eve (1987); (11)
Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Tom McIver (1988); (12)
Evolution—The Great Debate by Vernon Blackmore and Andrew Page (1989); (13)
Evolution and the Myth of Creationism by Tim Berra (1990); (14)
The Creationist Movement in Modern America by Raymond A. Eve and Francis B. Harrold (1991); (15)
The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ronald L. Numbers (1992); (16)
The Myth-Maker’s Magic—Behind the Illusion of “Creation Science” by Delos B. McKown; (17)
Creationism’s Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism by Lee Tiffin (1994); (18)
Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy by Arthur N. Strahler (1999); and (19)
The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism [the sequel to his 1982 volume,
The Monkey Business] by Niles Eldredge (2000).
This list could be lengthened considerably, but I think the point is
clear. Creation no longer is being taken lightly. A “call to arms” has
been made by the evolutionary establishment, and is being answered by
many in the evolutionary community. Creationism is enjoying renewed
popularity. Were that not the case, evolutionists would not be so busily
engaged in meeting what they perceive as a very real threat to the
status quo that they have enjoyed for so long.
Argument #1: Creation is not scientific, because creation is not
testable, reproducible, or repeatable. Evolution, on the other hand, is
scientific, and should be taught in science curricula, while creation
should not.
Response: For a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it
must be supported by events, processes, or properties that can be
observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of
future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments. In addition, the
theory must be capable of falsification. That is, it must be possible to
conceive of some experiment, the failure of which would disprove the
theory. It is on the basis of such criteria that most evolutionists
insist creation be denied respectability as a potential
scientific
explanation of origins. Creation has not been witnessed by human
observers, it cannot be tested experimentally, and as a theory it is
nonfalsifiable. Notice, however, that the General Theory of Evolution
(organic evolution) also fails to meet all three of these criteria. No
one observed the origin of the Universe or the origin of life.
Similarly, no one has observed the conversion of a fish into an
amphibian or an ape-like creature into a man. Paul Ehrlich and L.C.
Birch, both evolutionists, have stated:
Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by
any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily
false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by
most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).
In a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (on the
mathematical probabilities of evolution actually having occurred),
Murray Eden, in speaking about the falsifiability of evolution, said:
This cannot be done in evolution, taking it in its broad sense, and
this is really all I meant when I called it tautologous in the first
place. It can, indeed, explain anything. You may be ingenious or not in
proposing a mechanism which looks plausible to human beings and
mechanisms which are consistent with other mechanisms which you have
discovered, but it is still an unfalsifiable theory (1967, p. 71).
Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being
observable experimentally. Both, however, can be stated as scientific
models. It is poor science, and even poorer science education, to
restrict instruction solely to the evolution model. When evolutionists
attempt to depict evolution as the
only scientific model, they
are no longer speaking in the context of scientific truth. Either they
do not know what the data actually reveal, or they are deliberately
attempting to deceive. Evolution fails to answer more questions than it
purports to answer, and the creation model certainly has as much (and
often more) to offer as an alternative model. It is not within the
domain of science to
prove any concept regarding ultimate
origins. The best one can hope for in this area is an adequate model to
explain circumstantial evidence at hand. When one observes the
undeniable design of every living thing, the complexity of the Universe
itself, and the intricate nature of life, the creation model becomes
quite attractive. It at least possesses a potential explanation for such
attributes. The evolution model does not, but instead asks us to
believe that design, inherent complexity, and intricateness are all the
result of chance processes operating over eons of time.
Argument #2: Even though it may be true to say that evolution cannot be demonstrated, at least it is based on
natural
processes, whereas creation is based on supernatural processes. This,
in and of itself, proves that creation is intrinsically unscientific.
Response: Actually this argument is intended to be two-fold in
its thrust. First, it is intended to convey the idea that since
“creation” occurred in the distant past as the result of events not now
able to be studied in the laboratory, it is outside the realm of
empirical science. Second, it is intended to convey the idea that only
those things that are
purely naturalistic are of a scientific nature and therefore can be studied scientifically. Let us examine these two concepts.
First, creation and evolution both share one fundamental similarity—the
idea that the Universe and life are the products of one or more
unique
events. Evolutionists speak of such things as the Big Bang and the
origin of living from nonliving. Neither of these events, however, is
occurring today. In a similar fashion, creationists speak of the
Universe and life as the products of divine creative acts, and of a
worldwide Flood that helped shape the present Earth. These events also
are unique.
Science (in the sense that most people understand the word) normally
deals with empirical events and processes—things that can be observed
with the five senses. Furthermore, science usually concerns itself with
those things that are universal, dependable, timeless, and repeatable.
That is to say, a scientist in China can use the same methodology as a
scientist in America and obtain the same results today, tomorrow, next
year, or at any time in the future.
It should be obvious to all concerned that neither evolution nor
creation falls into such a category. Certain of the basic concepts
involved (the Big Bang, the creation of man, etc.) cannot be tested
using these criteria. Yet there are certain things about both creation
and evolution that
can be tested. In order to distinguish the
things within each model that can be tested from those that cannot, some
authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two distinct
categories. For example, in their 1984 book,
The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen recommended separating
operation science from
origin science. Others (e.g., Geisler and Anderson, 1987) have followed suit.
Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature that
require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.), while
origin science deals with singularities that may or may not require a
natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term “origin science”
may be new but, in fact, it works by the time-honored, standard
principles of causality and uniformity. The
principle of causality says that every material effect must have a prior, necessary, and adequate cause. The
principle of uniformity
(or analogy) says that similar effects have similar causes. In other
words, the kinds of causes that we observe producing effects today can
be counted on to have produced similar effects in the past. What we see
as an adequate cause in the present, we assume to have been an adequate
cause in the past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the present, we
assume to have been an inadequate cause in the past.
None of us denies that creation occurred in the distant past as the
results of events that now are unable to be studied experimentally in
the laboratory. In this sense, creation is no more a “fact” of science
than evolution. But the same limitations are inherent in evolutionary
scenarios. Anyone familiar with the works of evolutionists like Robert
Jastrow and Fred Hoyle is aware of the fact that these scientists, and
others, have pointed out that the origin of the Universe, and of life
itself, occurred in the distant past under conditions not necessarily
experimentally reproducible and therefore not able to be studied in a
strictly scientific manner. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, both
evolutionists, also have addressed these issues.
Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by
any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily
false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either
without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in
extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their
validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by
most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).
The origin of the Universe (and evolution, which is linked inextricably
to it) is alleged to have begun in the pre-human past under conditions
that are not now reproducible. That, it would seem to the unbiased
observer, would put
both creation
and evolution on equal
footing. It will not suffice to simply say that “creation is based on
supernatural processes in the past” and is therefore not scientific. The
“supernatural” beginnings of creation are no less available for
scientific examination than are the “unique” (though allegedly
“natural”) beginnings of evolution.
That would seem, to the unbiased observer, to put creation and
evolution on equal footing. Evolutionists likely will disagree, as
Trevor Major has observed:
Still, evolutionists may argue that creationists have done themselves
no service by making a separate science out of singularities. Defining a
nonempirical science is one thing; proposing supernatural causes is
quite another. For this reason, they will always view creationism as
unscientific. But the idea that history consists of an unbroken stream
of natural causes and effects is merely a presumption on their
part. Perhaps they fear a new generation of doctoral students invoking
God when they cannot explain something in their research projects. Yet
this fear is unfounded. As stated earlier, most scientists of the past
had no problem with divine intervention. Indeed, one of the driving
forces of early Western science was the idea that the Universe, as God’s
creation, was open to rational investigation. In doing good operation
science, these scientists would seek natural causes for regularly
occurring events. Many of them recognized, however, that unique events
may require a cause beyond nature. Only analogy with the present can
determine whether the cause is miraculous or naturalistic (1994, 14:21,
emp. in orig.).
It is not a justifiable criticism to say simply that “creation” is
based on supernatural processes in the distant past” and therefore is
not scientific. The “supernatural” beginnings of creation are no less
available for scientific examination than are the “unique” (though
allegedly natural) beginnings of evolution.
Second, whoever defined science as “naturalism”? The word “science” derives from the Latin
scientia,
meaning “knowledge.” Scientists are supposed to be men and women who
are on a lifelong search for truth and knowledge, regardless of where
that search may lead. Science is based on an observation of the facts
and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data.”
There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order!
To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism, and that
only
those items that might have come about “naturally” may be studied, is
to beg the question entirely. It is at least possible that creation
could be the true explanation of origins, and thus it is premature and
bigoted for certain scientists to exclude it from the domain of science
by definition, all the while leaving the theory of evolution within that
domain.
Argument #3: Creationists actually are nothing more than
pseudo-scientists, and should not be regarded as “real” scientists like
evolutionists.
Response: This charge, which is becoming increasingly common, is
nothing more than anti-creationist, humanistic propaganda intended as a
“scare tactic.” However, it is easily refuted. First, many of the great
scientists of the past were creationists. Men like Kepler, Boyle,
Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin, and a score of others
who founded the various disciplines of science, were creationists, not
evolutionists (see Morris, 1982). Second, all
real scientists are
not necessarily evolutionists. There are thousands of bona fide
scientists today who are creationists, not evolutionists. They have
graduate degrees from accredited institutions of higher learning, and
have records and credentials comparable to those of any other segment of
the scientific community. There are creationist Ph.D.s, M.D.s, Sc.D.s,
etc. in every branch of the pure and applied sciences—biology, geology,
physics, engineering, medicine, and so on.
While it is true that the names of evolutionists such as the late Carl
Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Robert Jastrow, and many others have become
household words, it likewise is true that there are thousands of
creation scientists at work in the scientific community today who are
equally as good at their jobs as men of somewhat greater public stature.
The fact that a man is a creationist, and therefore does not agree with
evolution, does not make him by definition a “pseudo-scientist.”
Evolutionists admittedly are upset by the recent popularity of creation,
and thus have resorted to this sort of name-calling in an attempt to
undermine the credibility of some creation scientists. But when such men
as the late Wernher von Braun, the late A.E. Wilder-Smith, Walter
Lammerts, Dean Kenyon, and others like them step forward to espouse
creationism, the argument that creation scientists are nothing but
“pseudo-scientists” suddenly pales into insignificance, and easily is
seen to be devoid of any truth whatsoever.
Argument #4: The creationists’ “ulterior motive” is simply to be
able to get their own religious views taught in public schools, under
the guise of “creation science.”
Response: This is yet another of the scare tactics offered by
evolutionary humanists, and again, easily is shown to be false. Anyone
who has examined books on creation written by creationists for use in
public school classrooms quickly will notice the conspicuous absence of
any religious overtones. There is no mention of God, there are no
quotations from religious literature (including the Bible), and there
are no references to religion in general. It is going to be a bit
difficult for evolutionists to convince the public that creationists
simply want to get “religion into the public schools” when some of the
most outspoken critics of religion in the public schools (e.g.,
religions like secular humanism, etc.) are
creationists.
Argument #5: The creationists are unable to support their own
case with scientific evidence. All they can do is attack the
evolutionist’s case with “negative evidence.” Why don’t creationists
have any scientific evidence to support
their case?
Response: This argument is parroted carelessly by evolutionists
who ought to know better. In multiple debates with evolutionists,
creation scientists have affirmed piece after piece of
positive
evidence for the creation model. Evidences from the various fields of
science are piled one on top of the other to make the strongest possible
case for creation. In fact, entire books have been written on the
subject. Creationists continually point out to evolutionists that the
Law of Biogenesis states explicitly that life comes only from life of
its kind, and that this law is the cornerstone of all biology.
Creationists continually point out that the fossil record is replete
with gaps, and is devoid of the transitional forms that evolution must
have if it is to preserve its case. Creationists continually point out
that there are a multitude of evidences pointing to a young Earth (e.g.:
oil well fluid pressures, the helium inventory in the atmosphere,
population kinetics, the Earth’s rapid magnetic decay, polonium halos in
the “oldest” rocks, etc.) that by definition would preclude evolution.
Creationists continually point out that genetic mutations
reduce viability, rather than changing one species into another. Creationists continually point out that natural selection
preserves
the status quo and eliminates those organisms that are “changed” from
the norm. Creationists continually point out that the laws of
thermodynamics clearly indicate that the Universe: (a) could not have
created itself; and (b) is running down and becoming
less ordered, not building up and becoming
more
ordered. Creationists continually point out that the Universe is
contingent, and that contingent entities ultimately are dependent upon a
non-contingent entity—a concept that fits the creation model perfectly,
but that is something the evolution model cannot explain.
One by one the arguments of the evolutionist can be, and have been,
answered. Name-calling, special-pleading, begging the question, and
other such tactics ultimately are inadequate in responding to the
scientific evidences presented by creationists. Eventually the
subterfuge employed by evolutionists is seen to be both illogical and
meritless. The arguments offered by creationists remain unrefuted.
REFERENCES
Berra, Tim M. (1990),
Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Bishop, George (1998), “The Religious Worldview and American Beliefs about Human Origins,”
The Public Perspective, pp. 39-48, August/September.
Blackmore, Vernon and Andrews Page (1989),
Evolution—The Great Debate (Oxford, England: Lion).
Dawkins, Richard (1986),
The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).
Eden, Murray (1967), in
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia, PA: Wistar Press).
Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,”
Nature, 214:349-352, April 22.
Eldredge, Niles (1982),
The Monkey Business (New York: Pocket Books).
Eldredge, Niles (2000),
The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism (New York: W.H. Freeman).
Eve, Raymond A. and Francis B. Harrold (1991),
The Creationist Movement in Modern America (Boston, MA: G.K. Hall).
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983),
Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (New York: Pantheon).
Geisler, Norman L. and J. Kerby Anderson (1987),
Origin Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Glanz, James (2000), “Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories,”
The New York Times, p. A-1, March 11.
Godfrey, Laurie R. (1983),
Scientists Against Creationism (New York: W.W. Norton).
Hanson, Robert W. (1986),
Science and Creation (New York: Macmillan).
Harrold, Francis B. and Raymond A. Eve (1987),
Cult Archaeology and Creationism (Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press).
The Humanist (1977), “A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science,” 37:4-5, January/February.
Kitcher, Philip (1982),
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press).
Major, Trevor J. (1991), “In the News—National Beliefs Polled,”
Reason & Revelation, 11:48, December.
Major, Trevor J. (1994), “Is Creation Science?,”
Reason & Revelation, 14:17-23, March.
McIver, Tom (1988),
Anti-Evolution Bibliography (Jefferson, NC: McFarland).
McKown, Delos B. (1993),
The Myth-Maker’s Magic—Behind the Illusion of “Creation Science” (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Montagu, Ashley (1984),
Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford University Press).
Moore, David W. (1999), “Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools,” [On-line], URL
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990830.asp (Princeton, NJ: Gallup News Service).
Morris, Henry M. (1982),
Men of Science: Men of God, San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers, San).
Morris, John D. (1992), “Do Americans Believe in Creation?,”
Acts and Facts, 21[2]:d, February.
Nelkin, Dorothy (1977),
Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press).
Newell, Norman D. (1985),
Creation and Evolution: Myth or Reality? (New York: Praeger).
Newport, Frank (1993), “God Created Humankind, Most Believe,”
Sunday Oklahoman, A-22.
Numbers, Ronald L. (1992),
The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Ruse, Michael (1979),
The Darwinian Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
San Diego Union (1982), “44% Believe God Created Mankind 10,000 Years Ago,” August 30.
Sheler, Jeffery L. (1999),
Is the Bible True? (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins).
Strahler, Arthur N. (1999),
Science and Earth History: The Evolution/
Creation Controversy (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus), second edition.
Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984),
The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).
Tiffin, Lee (1994),
Creationism’s Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fundamentalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Young, Willard (1985),
Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).
Stephanie Pappas, writing for LiveScience.com,
recently penned an article titled, “Why Gay Parents May Be the Best
Parents” (2012). In that article she attempted to make the case that
same-sex couples provide an environment that is better for raising
children than the environment provided by heterosexual couples. To
bolster her case, she cited various studies, quoted numerous “experts,”
and fleshed out the details with copious statistics. Her thinly veiled
attempt to appear unbiased about the issue is extremely transparent, and
her clear agenda to advance tolerance for homosexuality, in spite of
its real impact on society, was evident.