Creationism Doesn’t Work with Journalism


Virginia Heffernan

Journalist Virginia Heffernan displayed incredible courage coming out as a creationist. Well, incredible courage and incredible foolishness.

Heffernan has had a successful career in her chosen field. She has written for The New York Times and the website Slate in the past. Currently Yahoo! News features her work, where she mostly writes about technology.

Last week she departed from her normal content. In a piece that ran to nearly 1,000 words, she explained why she rejects science in favor of a biblical view of things.

She does not have a scientific problem with the Big Bang theory because that is not how she thinks about these things. Rather, it is a boring story, in the most literal sense of ‘story.’

Heffernan judges cosmology and evolution based on how they stack up against other stories in terms of entertainment value. In the case of the Big Bang, Heffernan writes, it can be reduced to a single sentence – “Something exploded.” It lacks the characters and action that the Bible offers. It has no Adam and Eve, or Cain and Abel to keep her interested.

“I guess I don’t ‘believe’ that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics, and it’s certainly a livelier tale,” she concludes.

In other words, a story told around campfires by primitive humans who lacked the framework to explain the baffling universe around them is superior to scientific frameworks refined by centuries of observation, theorizing and rigorous testing because the former is a better yarn. Heffernan also says she sees no problem with a technology writer who rejects science and lacks the intellectual curiosity to try to understand what makes all of the gadgets she loves work. “It might as well be angels,” she writes.

Her piece has elicited predictable responses from both supporters and detractors. I’ll let science continue its centuries-long pummeling of religion in that fight.

Instead, let’s look at this from a journalism standpoint.

There are two schools of thought among journalists about how to handle bias and personal beliefs.

One camp argues that journalists should keep their personal beliefs private, lest they muddy the waters. They are professionals whose job is to report the facts. The rest is irrelevant. Their ethics should guide them when they cross a line.

The other camp argues that personal beliefs and biases cannot be so easily divorced from reporting. How we view the world affects how we write about things, even if only subconsciously. We try to keep them separate, but out of deference for disclosure and respect for readers’ intelligence, journalists should put everything on the table. Let readers judge if the product is tainted.

Heffernan chose option two. She bravely exposed her views on deeply personal topics that arouse passions in people. Now readers get to decide whether she remains credible.

It’s not a hard decision.

Hamilton Nolan at Gawker pulled no punches:

“We are not saying you’re a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet communications, they might stop, in a moment of gathering doubt, and recall that you are a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic, and that therefore your dedication to facts is somewhat in question. This could, and should, erode your credibility, in the eyes of those elitist readers who value things that are based on ‘evidence.’”

The next time Heffernan goes looking for a job, which if there is any justice in the world will be very soon, she will wear a scarlet letter “I” for irrational. Editors and publishers can choose from plenty of other up-and-coming writers who understand that science has something interesting and useful to say about the world.

Let’s just hope that this does not affect how those editors view other women writers. Women already face an uphill struggle in the field. Most journalists are still men, and they tend to get the plum assignments. The last thing anyone needs is the intellectual failures of one writer to taint many.

Yet, maybe Heffernan is more clever than she now appears. Sure, she destroyed her credibility as a serious journalist, but there are plenty of unserious journalists making a good living. She could already have sent her resume to Fox News and other conservative outlets where rejecting science and reason is not a problem — it is a prerequisite.

Christian Trejbal is a member of the board of directors of the Association of Opinion Journalists and chair of the Open Government Committee. Overcoming graduate degrees in philosophy, he worked as an editorial writer at The (Bend) Bulletin and The Roanoke Times for more than a decade. In 2013, he and his wife moved to Portland, Ore., where he writes freelance and provides public policy analysis. Or, as his wife prefers to say, he is a stay-at-home dude. Follow him on Twitter @ctrejbal

Image Sources: Heffernan’s Twitter account.

  • Dan

    Disregarding science because it’s boring? Choosing to believe the bible cuz its more interesting? Are you high, lady? I can think of a thousand more interesting make-belief stories than the bible. You are not a very interesting person, therefore your opinion on what is creative and boring and what is not is almost irrelevant. Pick up a Tolkien book or something, Gandalf does much more good for the realm than Jesus ever did. I’ve seen more people get more passionate about talks of The Battle of Middle Earth than nailing some guy to a piece of wood. It’s not the fact that you ignore/dislike science and technology, it’s that to you, the only real alternative is an exclusively Christian point of view. Science boring? I’ve never heard such blasphemy.

  • Ronda

    So, because she likes how the bible creation story reads then it is true? If that is the standard by which we judge true, I vote for the Navajo creation story. By comparison, based on my opinion of what makes a “good” story, the Navajo creation myth is far more interesting. I have a thought, maybe Virginia Heffernan is boring.

  • justafish

    Science is interesting. Theology is interesting.

    I really don’t get the point of trying to use one to disprove the other; if your science is good, it will steer you clear of incorrect religious assumptions. If your religion is good, it will steer you clear of errant philosophy masquerading as science.

    It’s not a problem. Use your heart and your head.

    Also, if I believe in creation it should not mean I reject science. There is a difference between old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists.

Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
Get Over Yourselves. We’re All Rory Gilmore
Hillary Clinton, Shake It Off, Taylor Swift, Hillary Clinton Campaign song
Six Reasons “Shake It Off” Should Be Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Theme Song
Nancy Reagan dies, Just Say No, Ronald Reagan
A Not-So-Positive Ode to Nancy Reagan’s Frothy “Just Say No” Campaign
I Married for Health Insurance
Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
A Case of Nixonian Deja Vu
Post-Election Munchies: What is Your Grief Snack of Choice?
Why I Wrote “Trumping And Drinking”
A Case of Nixonian Deja Vu
Trump Reality Check, Now with Actual Facts!
Fascism Facts
I Married for Health Insurance
Get Over Yourselves. We’re All Rory Gilmore
Post-Election Munchies: What is Your Grief Snack of Choice?
Women’s Elections Rights in Saudi Arabia: A Token Drop in an Abysmal Bucket & the Plight of Women Under Sharia Law
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
Paris attacks, Paris terrorism
Is Paris Burning?
Chinese government and women's reproductive rights, adopting Chinese girls, international adoption
Dear Xi Jinping, I Am Writing to You as an American Mom of a 19-Year-Old Chinese Daughter
The Vital Voice of Hillary Clinton: Part 1
Maybe It Wasn’t Rape: Emerging Matriarchy and the Altering of Women’s Past Sexual Narratives
The Eyes Have It!
Ashley Madison, Jared Fogle, sex, rape, sexual affairs
Ashley Madison vs. Jared Fogle: Rape, Sex and Hacking in America
women's viagra, Viagra, Flibanserin, sexual arousal, women's desire, sex after menopause
That “Little Pink Pill” Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Get our new weekly email
Broadly Speaking

featuring our best words for the week + an exclusive longread