Generational Indoctrination. The status of public education in America.

photo of woman wearing square academic cap
Photo by Tony Clay on Pexels.com

America, just 50 years ago, was known to have the greatest educational system in the world.  Perhaps the greatest in all of history. No rational person would say the same today.  What happened?

A mere 50 years, a tiny drop in the ocean of time has passed, and we now have one of the least successful, least effective, most profligately wasteful educational systems in the world.  As stated by educational expert Arne Duncan,  “At no level – early childhood, K-12, higher ed – are we even in the top 10 internationally. And that should scare us. It is scary and it does not bode well for the future.” (1)

What happened? Well, of course, many things have happened. Atheism happened. Scientism happened. Working moms happened. Multiculturalism happened. Abortion happened. Substance abuse happened. Indoctrination happened. But how did we get from fidelity, to foolishness in education?

Without any attempt to inject politics, “At the state and federal level, the United States spends more than $620 billion dollars on K-12 education each year,” Trump said on Sept. 8, 2016. “That’s an average of about $12,296 dollars for every student enrolled in our elementary and secondary public schools.”(2) Even the liberal-leaning site Politifact admits this is true. We once had the best schools, but now all we are left with is the most expensive schools in history.

Perhaps no single factor can be isolated upon which to cast all the blame. But we can be certain that the cause is NOT a lack of teachers, nor a lack of funding.  These simplistic, knee jerk responses have been tried ad nauseam for decades, with massive, seemingly perpetual increases in funding.  And the results? Massive, seemingly perpetual losses in educational outcomes for students.

Education, first and foremost, must pass on truth.  Educational techniques are important but not essential.  Many different teaching styles can be successful. Class sizes and budgets are, in the end, far less important than educational content.  Style, in the end, is vastly less important than substance. No educational system that denies ultimate truths can, in the end, be successful.

Our public educational systems, and most of our original colleges and universities, were founded on a belief in the Bible and a desire to pass on the teachings and beliefs contained therein. Then came the scientific revolution, and the sexual revolution. And from the top down, educational systems have come to represent atheism as the new norm, and eventually to ridicule all things associated with the Bible and Christianity. Oddly enough, as that process has occurred, all the measures of educational excellence have simultaneously declined.

Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)

What is the source or reason for this indoctrination?  There have been amazing advances in the scientific fields that have captured the imagination of teachers, students, and school boards alike.  So much so that they have nearly all fallen prey to the fad of scientism. And in the process, students have come to expect the “magic” of science to solve all their problems, without room for faith, logic, mind, will, or even perseverence.

Austin L Hughes,  Carolina Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina, in his superb article The Folly of Scientism, writes, “Of all the fads and foibles in the long history of human credulity, scientism in all its varied guises — from fanciful cosmology to evolutionary epistemology and ethics — seems among the more dangerous, both because it pretends to be something very different from what it really is and because it has been accorded widespread and uncritical adherence.“(4)

Jason Barney adds, “Scientism is a problem because the field of education is not a hard science, but a branch of moral philosophy, scientia mōrālis. Every philosophy of education necessarily relies on a previously established account of what it means to be human. But scientism screens out such foundational questions about man, the good life, and ultimate purpose, in an attempt to be more precise—or precise in a different way—than the subject matter admits of (cf. Aristotle, EN I.3, 1094b12-15). In so doing, it does not actually attain a neutral, “objective” viewpoint; instead, half-baked philosophies and unexamined assumptions rush back in, as seven demons take the place of the one that was exorcised. Scientism promises us firmer knowledge, not swayed to and fro by the winds of history and the waves of philosophy, but in reality it delivers only ignorance of how we are recycling old ideas by recasting them into new, scientific-looking forms.”(5)  Wow!  What a succinct and cogent realization!  If only our educators could see and understand this!

As I wrote in “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth“, teaching is a high calling, and that high calling involves always instilling truth, not lies.  It also involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging, and political correctness. Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute.  Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.

The solution to “what is wrong with schools in America” is not funding, or class size.  It is not methods, or media.  It is not even school choice or neighborhoods.  All of these may have positive or negative impacts and should be addressed.  But the solution to America’s educational dilemma is admitting that:

  1. For decades we have taught the lie of scientism.
  2. For decades we have promoted godlessness and atheism.
  3. For decades we have allowed concern with populist topics like sexism and racism to overshadow all other concerns, including education itself!

 

If we could just find and teach the truths of literature, history, and science in their proper context, in the eternal light of God and the Bible, all these other educational concerns will vanish. If we return to teaching Truth, the minds of our next generation will be the best educated in all of history.

 

(1) http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-07-27/americas-schools-arent-working-for-americas-kids

(2) http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2016/sep/21/donald-trump/trump-us-spends-more-almost-any-other-major-countr/

(3) /www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

(4) http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism

(5) http://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/problem-scientism-conventional-education

 

Is Intelligent Design Scientific?

man portrait old artist
Photo by Rene Asmussen on Pexels.com

Do you believe the Bible, or do you believe “science”?  More importantly, is there any rational or logical reason you must choose between the two?

If one were to listen to the media hype, the Hollywood explanations, prime time TV, or many liberal college professors, one might assume there are just two choices in cosmology.  A person can either can believe “science” or one can have “faith” in the Bible story.  But is this even remotely true? Is it even sensible to place science and faith in different camps? Or is this entire scenario a false dichotomy?

Many of my previous posts have already discussed the evolutionary side of this issue very thoroughly, and I believe we have more than adequately proven that belief in evolution is neither logical, nor scientific.  Belief in evolution is clearly a faith based choice.  If you read my earlier blogs,  “Astonishing Ice Age facts“, or “The Data in the Strata“, or “A Totally Modern View on Evolution” you will understand that belief in Evolution is not a scientific choice or preference, but rather a philosophical one. There are vastly more scientific facts and principles supporting Creation, than those supporting the Big Bang or Evolution.

Perhaps belief in Evolution stems from a prideful desire to elevate man to the point of understanding all of the Universe and Creation. Perhaps, as noted in the earlier blog “To Teach. To Educate. Or to Tell the Truth?” it is just generational  indoctrination. Or maybe it originates in the illogical belief that avoiding belief in God as our Creator will somehow avoid the consequences of our sins, failures and rebellion. Regardless, as the tagline of this blog has stated from the beginning, “It takes a lot of FAITH to believe in evolution.”

The evidence (outlined in 80 or so blogs over the last year) clearly shows that belief in Evolution is a faith based choice. But what of the other side?  Is belief in Creation merely a “Scientific cop out”?  Do proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and so-called “creation scientists” abandon scientific processes and base their beliefs totally on religious principles? Not so, according to the following quote from Casey Luskin originally posted at OpposingViews.com. Speaking of ID (Intelligent Design), he writes;

“One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation. Nothing critics can say—whether appealing to politically motivated condemnations of ID issued by pro-Darwin scientific authorities, or harping upon the religious beliefs of ID proponents—will change the fact that intelligent design is not a “faith-based” argument. Intelligent design has scientific merit because it is an empirically based argument that uses well-accepted scientific methods of historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present-day observations, are derived from intelligent causes.”(1)

Luskin further explains, “The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. As noted, ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.”(2)

Luskin “gets it”.  Most secular atheists don’t.  There is absolutely NO logical reason to separate science vs faith on issues of cosmology, or any issues related to where humanity or the universe originated. However, if one were to objectively discuss which cosmology has more scientific support, I believe firmly that Creation science would win the argument.  Still, the point remains, there is no reason to “choose” one or the other.  Science, unimpeded and freely practiced, is not in opposition to Scripture!

As I wrote in the blog “BIG GOD. small god. Why Cosmology Matters. “Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.” And BOTH are correct.

In essence, as written by Stephen C. Meyer, “Proponents of neo-Darwinism contend that the information in life arose via purposeless, blind, and unguided processes. ID proponents contend that the information in life arose via purposeful, intelligently guided processes. Both claims are scientifically testable using scientific methods employed by standard historical sciences. ID thus is based upon the claim that there are “telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.”(3)

You have a mind. You have an intellect. (Both of which are, by the way, strong arguments for ID.) You get to choose whether you believe secular stories about a universe that magically appeared from nothing and life that created itself, or to believe in an Almighty Creator God.  But you cannot use as your crutch any statement that you don’t believe in Creation because it is not scientific.  Not if you want to be intellectually honest.

 

(1) http://www.discovery.org/a/7051/

(2) ibid

(3) Stephen C. Meyer, Not by Chance: From Bacterial Propulsion Systems to Human DNA, Evidence of Intelligent Design Is Everywhere, Natl. Post A22 (Dec. 1, 2005).

 

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Psalm 14:1 NIV

The Problem with Bangers

blue and yellow plastic toy revolver pistol
Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

If you believe in the big bang, I suppose I will call you a Banger.  (For a number of scientific reasons, I absolutely do not believe the big bang cosmology.) After reading the following, I hope you will agree.  I apologize in advance for two relatively lengthy quotations of over 100 words each, but I believe you will see their importance as we evaluated the scientific relevance of the so called big bang.

You might call me a science denier or a Bible thumper.  You might even call me an idiot or a moron.  As an ER physician I can say categorically that none of those accusations are true. Still you might choose any number of other insults or expletives which are leveled at anyone (scientist, physician, educator, or student) who dares question the prevailing big bang cosmology. I have been insulted many times in a similar vein by self-absorbed college freshmen with no training whatsoever in the sciences. But I will call you, and said college freshmen, Bangers. Why?

Because Bangers, with their unquestioning group think are a danger to the scientific community.  They are an embarrassment to science as a whole. They stand in the way of real scientific progress by their unassailable devotion to their atheistic and evolutionary mindset. And I am certainly not the only one who believes this. As explained by Tom Watkins, retired Military Scientist,the big bang is not only a mere theory, it is a very poor theory indeed. In fact there are astronomical problems with the Big Bang…

Unfortunately, we also found some verifiable evidence that cannot be explained by the BB theory.  For instance, there is an imbalance of matter and anti-matter and there is much less lithium than there should be.  Some other inconsistencies are so complex that they usually go by names such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the monopole problem. (look them up)  There are others.

And then there is the simple matter of timing of the BB.  If we see the universe is expanding and theorize that it must have been smaller in the past, wouldn’t it be necessary to know how large it is now in order to project how long it took it to expand to its present size?  Even at speed C.  We can not see past 13.7 BLY out but for a variety of reasons, the observable diameter of the universe is actually about 93 billion light years and the diameter of the whole universe beyond that can be seen may be as large as 3 x 10 (to the 23 power) times larger than 93 BLYs.  That is a large number but the difference (between that large number and 13.7) is explained, not by the BB but by the expansion of space itself by some, as yet, unknown process.

One other interesting fallacy is related to the cosmological constant.  The error between observation and calculated (conjectured) vacuum energy of space is a factor of 1 x 10 to the 120th power.  That is the largest error between theory and observation of anything in any science.  This is called the Vacuum Catastrophe.  It is hard to relate to the size of this error, it is so big. (1)

For those who cannot comprehend 10 to the 120th power, it is estimated that there are approximately 10 to the 80th power atoms in the entire universe.  So that means that 10 to the 120th power is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than the number of atoms in the entire known universe. That it the error in the so-called “cosmological constant” that Bangers rely on.

So for those of you who are truly of a scientific mindset (not group thinking Bangers),  I hope you will recognize that those who tell you that the Big Bang is settled science are the TRUE science deniers.  They deny the matter/antimatter problem, the horizon problem, the monopole problem, the flatness problem, the cosmological constant discrepancy, the Vacuum catastrophe, and more. You see, for a Banger, there is no possible way to scientifically disprove the Big Bang.  It is an Article of Faith.

Even the Bangers admit this. A 2017 article by Fraser Cain on Cosmic Inflation, reads, “The Big Bang was one of the greatest theories in the history of science. Although it did have a few problems, cosmic inflation was developed to address them. Although there have been a few false starts, astronomers are now performing a sensitive enough search that they might find evidence of this amazing inflationary period. And then it’ll be Nobel Prizes all around.”(2) Note the words “might find evidence.” The inflationary period is so critical that the entire theory collapses without it, and yet we have NO evidence to substantiate it!

So in spite of what Bangers tell you, their theory is not proven, or settled in any way. There are myriad problems and confounding variables, some of which are more vast than the universe itself. But the true absurdity of their group think is explained in the following excerpt, from a 2018 post on Quora.com, by Bud Rapanault, in which we see that the big bang theory fails in almost every scientific sense, both BEFORE the so called inflationary period, and AFTER!

According to the big bang model, the “universe” sprang into being 13.8 billion years ago from a physically inexplicable initial condition wherein the entire universe was compressed into a volume quite a bit smaller than a gnat’s ass.

This remarkable and quite inexplicable initial condition then transitioned, for an inexplicable reason, to a somewhat explicable condition. At that point the model mathematically invokes an unobservable, ad hoc, inflation field to transition this “universe” to an even more explicable expanding state.

None of the foregoing has any empirical evidence to support it. It all took place, according to the theory, in a deep mythological past that is impervious to direct observation; the claimed events lie beyond the realm of science. Therefore, the model, to that point, is an unscientific mathematical absurdity. It says nothing scientifically meaningful about the nature of the cosmos.

It is then claimed that the post-absurdity, post-inflation “universe” can be modeled using standard physics to create an observable “universe” that might be said to resemble the cosmos we observe.

Except that, the big bang model’s version of our observed cosmos contains two significant features, dark matter and dark energy. Together they are said to comprise 95% of the matter-energy content of the “universe”. These features are predictions of the model; their existence is required to make the model agree with observations. However, no empirical evidence for either can be found. They do not exist in the cosmos we observe and measure. They exist only in the mathematical (big bang) model that requires them.

Therefore, it can be said that from its absurd mythological beginning to its empirically baseless description of a “current universe”, the big bang model bears no significant structural resemblance to the physical reality we actually observe and measure. The big bang model is nothing but a vapid mathematicism. That it is widely taught as unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy to impressionable students like Mr Fraser is a scandal.“(3)

So, sorry Bangers.  The improbable and imaginary science of the big bang is not settled at all. For more information please read my prior posts on Big God, small god; Why Cosmology Matters, AND Millennials: A Generation Lost in Deep Time.

 

(1) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

(2) http://www.universetoday.com/tag/the-monopole-problem/

(3) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

To teach? To educate? Or to tell the truth?

interior of abandoned building
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

 

Teachers in North Korea risk imprisonment or death if they stray from the government approved curriculum.  According to the site Foreign Policy News, the mandatory state school education includes large amounts of hate speech, revised history, and idolization of leadership.(1) And yet tens of thousands of teachers just “go along” and don’t make waves. Teachers are faced a choice of teaching what is in a textbook, or teaching the truth.  Some have to decide whether to teach what is a PC, government sanctioned lie, or risk discrimination, disgrace, or worse for telling the truth!  But is this unique to North Korea?

Teaching is a high calling, and that high calling involves always instilling truth, not lies.  It also involves equipping students to search out truth, and recognize falsehood. But today, even in American high schools, colleges and universities this is often not the case. We instead see a focus on messengers, and messaging. Truth, the student is told, is always relative, not absolute.  Many educators focus on instilling “liberal values” and “fighting creationist propaganda” rather than evaluating the issues themselves, or seeking out truth in the midst of lies. They have even created “safe spaces” where students and groups can avoid any open debate that threatens their preconceptions or their liberal mindset. Teachers with a more conservative mindset often feel cowed into submission, unwilling to face the persecution certain to come if they stray from the secular atheistic agenda.

David Gooblar, a lecturer at the University of Iowa, explains why this is illogical, “To put this in perspective, you got a dubious letter and just spent 20 minutes fact-checking the mailman. And then you actually opened the letter and found it was a signed letter from your Mom. ‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but the mailman is a Republican!’ ”(2)  Is it really the messenger which deserves the focus of our attention?  Should we not rather focus on the message itself, and read what our mother has written carefully and attentively?

This is the state of so called higher education today.  In fact, I would suggest that the the highest calling that some of our educators strive to attain is not truth-telling, but inculcating a liberal philosophy into the minds of impressionable students, indoctrinating those youth into an atheistic, liberal, anti-God, pro-evolutionary mindset.

Now admittedly, teachers find themselves in a difficult position.  If the textbook authors say there is no God, evolution is a fact, and the Big Bang has been “proven beyond question”, who are they to question such things? Readers will know from prior posts that the big bang and evolution have certainly NOT been proven, and are NOT even scientific, but are rather propped up by numerous unscientific allowances and alterations (think Dark matter, Dark energy and the Inflationary period). (See previous post “Bangers.”) But lets just start with this question. Does the author of a textbook, or the school board have a right to tell teachers they cannot believe in or speak about their belief in God?  Do they have a right to indoctrinate all the children in public schools into the religion of secular atheism?

Columnist Dennis Prager has stated that a causal factor of the rise in atheism is the “secular indoctrination of a generation,” and that “From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.”(3)

If that statement is true, it is both powerful, and tragic. Are we indoctrinating students the same way Middle Age teachers did?  But what can an open minded parent or student do?  If one wishes to fully educate a child, and not just indoctrinate them, what are your choices?  Many, it appears, are choosing not to expose their children to atheist propaganda. According to the site Conservapedia,

The use of public school indoctrination is growing less effective for purposes of atheist indoctrination due to budgetary problems facing many governments in the Western World (per pupil it cost more to educate students via public schools than private schools), the inferiority of many public school systems and the growing popularity of vouchers for education (which can be used for private religious school education) and the growing practice of  homeschooling by parents.

In addition, many public universities college are failing to educate students properly and many college students are jobless as a result. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills. Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.(3)

As tragic as that is, still God works in mysterious ways. I can imagine the day when school teachers, school boards and parents come together and agree that indoctrination is NOT education!  I can hope that someday soon students in public schools will no longer be force fed secular atheist propaganda.  I hope that we are now at a time, a very special time, when tens of thousand of teachers will once again be inspired to teach, not push atheism and secularism.  And then perhaps students will again be encouraged to think freely and evaluate faith, and science, with an open mind.

(For more information please see prior blog-posts; Pictures of Evolution,  AND Millennials; A Generation Lost In Deep Time, AND The Cambrian Explosion.)

(1) http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/02/23/inside-north-koreas-education-system/

(2) http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-to-Teach-Information/243973

(3) /www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_indoctrination

 

An Evil Triumvirate

photo of jack o lantern covered with dry leaves
Photo by Bartek Wojtas on Pexels.com

Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships.                  Neal Mack MD

If I told you there were three closely interconnected beliefs which are destroying society as we know it, you might be hesitant to believe it.  So let me explain. First the beliefs, and then their interconnections. Each of these three beliefs is dependent on the other.  Each belief naturally interweaves with the other.  Each, if taken to it’s logical extreme, virtually requires the other two. (See last week’s post on Evolution, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism.)

Atheism. Christians and other theistic religions have no trouble explaining the origin of life or the universe.  An omnipotent God did it.  An atheist views that as a cop out.  He must somehow account for another origin for life. God is out of the equation. Life therefore, and the existence of the atheist himself, must have another explanation.  Enter evolution and the big bang. Pretty much everyone knows the definition of atheism. But most fail to realize that the atheist is completely dependent on belief in evolution. He has no other explanation for his existence. If he does not believe in God then he must believe mankind and the universe created themselves, or came about by virtue of some grand cosmic accident. Atheism is not in itself evil, just foolish.  Atheists are not of necessity evil persons, but atheism lacks the logical cognitive restraints against many of the sins and evil actions traditionally proscribed, forbidden, or banned in religious societies.

Evolutionism. Evolution is a theory (not a fact) developed for the express purpose of explaining life in the absence of a Creator.  Without evolution atheists have no explanation for life. Secular atheism is both the author and the beneficiary of evolutionary teaching. The chicken or the egg argument, in this case, actually works both ways.  The teaching of evolution benefits atheism and the teaching of atheism promotes belief in evolution. The belief that life created itself, is a faith based decision, usually dependent on atheism and on scientism.  Any person, religious or not, could entertain the possibility of evolution as an explanation for our existence. But since there is no scientific proof of events which happened in the distant past, they are accepted on faith.  One either has faith in evolution, or faith in creation. Those who believe “science has all the answers to all the questions” are in effect practicing the religion of scientism.

Scientism, the belief that science is the only source of useful knowledge, is also a faith based philosophy. It is a tenet of atheism that has developed over that last century into a strong influence throughout society that masquerades as science while promoting atheism and evolution. The two major (unproven) tenets of scientism are Evolution and the Big Bang. (See previous posts on Scientism.) Scientism is probably the least understood but likely most important leg of this three legged stool.  Scientism is an unjustified faith in science, as though it has all the answers to all the questions in life. “Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.“(2) Although that sounds a little intimidating, it just means people have come to believe that science has all the answers to all the questions. But clearly it does not. (See prior blogs on why Scientism is self refuting.) Lets take the banner belief, the poster child of Scientism, the big bang, as an example.

Eric J. Lerner, president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. argues that the big bang is not even scientific, but absurd, “The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.” (3) Lerner goes on to say, “In my mind the biggest pernicious impact of big bang cosmology, to quote my mentor Alfvén again, is that “it blurs the line between science and science fiction.”

Science?  Or Science fiction? Pretty much everyone is familiar with the Star Trek Series.  It was a staple on television for many years and a dominating motion picture franchise for decades.  In the beginning, which I still recall, it was called science fiction. People understood that Captain Kirk’s escapades with attractive humanoid aliens were imaginary.  But now, ask any college freshman about the likelihood of interstellar travel, parallel universes, and even time travel, and most will tell you it is all just around the corner.  Just one more discovery and we will have it all.  Those beliefs are based in scientism.  At some point people lose the ability to differentiate between reality and imagination. That is also the state of modern cosmology.  It is purely science fiction. Why do I think it is science fiction? I will let Lerner explain.

Lerner goes on to state, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” He continues “In most fields of science, if you have a clear contradiction between observation and experiment, you have to reject the theory. But the history of the big bang theory is that they’ve introduced new hypothetical entities that have no backing evidence except that they preserve the underlying theory. Twenty-five years ago the concept of inflation, which involves a completely unknown field and energy, was introduced to save the big bang from many very grave contradictions of observation. Soon afterward was the addition of nonbaryonic “dark” matter and, in the last 10 years, dark energy.”(3)

In other words  the big bang hypothesis has already failed the test of science.  But you see, Scientism has never been about finding the truth.  Scientism is a religion tasked with preserving belief in evolution.  It is the alter at which the atheist worships. Do not expect to find rationality here. Hence the title of this blog, “An Evil Triumvirate.”  Our beliefs determine our trajectory in society as well as in our individual lives. The cumulative effects of our acceptance of secular atheism, evolution, and scientism have unquestionably had such a negative impact on society as to be reasonably called disastrous. The insidious evil effects of these three beliefs are coming into full view now as we see rampant drug abuse, homelessness, family breakups, HIV, pornography, economic oppression, and even sex slavery.  Why?  Because with atheism, the universe is an accident and life has no meaning. Because without the Holy Spirit there is no limit to the evil men and women can commit.

(For more information please see prior posts; A Totally Modern View on Evolution, AND Evolutionism, Scientism, and the Demise of Atheism, AND Real Science, AND Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.)

 

(1) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/01/10-facts-about-atheists/

(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

(3) http://www.vision.org/eric-lerner-interview-big-bang-theory-378

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

BIG GOD / small god? Why Cosmology Matters!

sky night milky way stars
Photo by Free Nature Stock on Pexels.com

Atheists and Creationists both agree creation and evolution would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Both camps, it seems, can agree on this one thing!  According to Stephen Barr author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, perhaps some of the battles between camps “could have been avoided had there been more good will and intellectual humility on the part of scientists.  We would all be better off if more scientists simply admitted that there are things we don’t understand about the hows and whys of evolution.”(1)  Yet in spite of BOTH theories requiring miraculous intervention, our schools continue to teach ONLY the secular atheistic theories of the Big Bang and Evolution.

Our view of the world, the universe, ourselves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But is this what science really tells us? Or is this merely the opinion of secular atheists, promoting their version of the facts?

Secular atheists have a great deal to say about their little god.  He can’t be real. He doesn’t exist. He is hateful and misogynistic and on and on.  But one thing that seems odd is hearing atheists offer opinions on what god can and can’t do. If your god has to wait on evolution you might have a small god. If your god has to wait 12 billion years for light to come from another star, or requires scientific approval of the latest version of the Big Bang in order to create the universe, you have a small god. If you think you can understand god, you have a small god.  If you believe your opinion on matters of eternity are more coherent, pertinent, and relevant than god’s opinion, you have a small god.

But if you have even a glimpse of an understanding of what scripture means when God calls himself I AM, you might have a BIG GOD.  If you have meditated on what it might really mean to be omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnipresent, you might have a BIG GOD.  If the miracles in the New Testament don’t faze you, because life itself is unbelievably miraculous, you might have a BIG GOD. If the matter of where God was before time was, or before the Universe was doesn’t really bother you at all, because you understand HE CREATED TIME ITSELF, you might have a BIG GOD.

Christians and most atheists agree.  Our universe, and the earth, and life itself are astounding and miraculous events. But then the agreement stops.

Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.

And BOTH are correct. In order for this magnificent world and our vast universe to be here, something miraculous and unbelievable indeed had to occur. In the debate over Evolution, the debate often just comes down to which impossible feat you choose to believe.

But here is the part you  probably don’t know. There is nothing scientific about the theories of origin proposed by EITHER side of the argument.  The difference is, creationists do not pretend to claim scientific credibility for their theories of origin.  Atheistic secular scientists do claim such scientific credibility, in spite of their dependence on mathematical mythology, and their huge problems with DNA damage, no intermediary fossils, a complete lack of transitional forms, polystrate fossils, flatness, the cosmological constant, entropy, inflation, lithium, dark matter, dark energy and the lack of any appreciable antimatter. (For explanations, please see my prior posts entitles Bang… and Nothing, The Uniformitarians, and Nothing Can’t do Something.)

However, I would challenge you to read their arguments.  I would refer you to a particularly good debate, for instance on pros and cons of the Big bang as science on Debate.org.(2) It is just a dozen or so pages of reading and is quite understandable (See footnote #1).

Another excellent source of understanding the Big Bang Cosmology as (junk) science is found on Quora.com.(3) I believe you will also find this to be an unbiased and scientific interpretation of the data. I highly recommend it, but just be on the lookout for the many times scientists say “we don’t know”, or “we don’t understand” or “we cannot explain” or “for some reason”. If that doesn’t sound scientific, it’s because it isn’t. Those who propose the Big Bang will say “so far results support this model” while at the same time saying they have no idea why their figures are vastly off (by several orders of magnitude during the so-called inflationary period).

For those truly interested in Cosmology, the entirety of the argument and pretty much all of its sub-chapters can be summed up in just one statement… If you believe in the Big Bang, then many areas of science can be said to support your beliefs, and those which specifically contradict your beliefs are just awaiting further experimentation and confirmation.  And if you believe in Creation, the exact same statement holds.

As Eric Lerner president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. states, The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.”(4)

He goes on to say, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” (5) Lerner is not a creationist.  But even he can easily see the absurdity of the Big Bang hypothesis.

 

(1) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/the-miracle-of-evolution

(2) http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Big-Bang-is-currently-the-most-credible-scientific-theory-on-the-evolution-of-the-early-Universe/1/

(3) http://www.quora.com/Why-is-The-Big-Bang-Theory-widely-accepted-How-solid-is-the-evidence-for-it

(4) http://www.vision.org/eric-lerner-interview-big-bang-theory-378

(5) ibid.

 

You return man to dust, and say, “Return, Oh children of man!” For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday when it is passed, or  as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:3-4 ESV

The Science of Predicting the Future

20181005_135017

If you ask the man or woman on the street “Is it possible to predict the future?”, they will likely say no.  It is of course NOT possible for us to “predict the future” except in a very few, short term, low variable type situations. And yet as humans, we see that as just another obstacle to be overcome. So that is exactly what secular scientists are continually trying to do, attempting to predict the weather, earthquakes, hurricanes, politics, economics, lifespans, relationships, and dozens of other events in life. This might not seem such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t that the exciting and compelling thing about science fiction, the desire to see into the future? What is the harm in that?

Well perhaps if it only involved educated, consenting adults who understood the actual underlying principles of scientific research and statistical analysis it would be acceptable. Or if it were seen for what it was, which is science fiction rather than hard science, perhaps it would be acceptable.  But such is not the case. This area of “soft science” has pervaded all aspects of education and the media.

In fact this merger between science and pop culture has created a progeny.  That progeny is called scientism, and in the name of science, our children are taught scientism from early grade school all the way through college.  They are constantly exposed to it on shows like “The Big Bang Theory.”  But while it is treated as actual science, many of the predictions made by scientism (about both past and future events) have much more in common with indoctrination and fortune telling than with actual, provable science.  For example:

“Scientists Have Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It’s Going to Be Epic”

So reads the headline on Sciencealert.com. (1) And the article goes on to say, “The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. And, based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years.”

The science of Astronomy is indeed amazing.  Astronomers observe,  speculate, theorize and calculate.  They attempt to explain this magnificent universe in which we live.  But they fail to tell you, as they predict earth’s incineration and demise, that their theories and explanations are still, even now, full of holes the size of galaxies. (For more on this see my prior blogs entitled Pluto and the Mickey Mouse Astronomers, and Operational vs Historical Science)

Or for another example, consider the following article by Jillian Scudder, which also states we have about a billion years or so left to inhabit the earth.

It is widely understood that the Earth as a planet will not survive the sun’s expansion into a full-blown red giant star. The surface of the sun will probably reach the current orbit of Mars – and, while the Earth’s orbit may also have expanded outwards slightly, it won’t be enough to save it from being dragged into the surface of the sun, whereupon our planet will rapidly disintegrate.” (2)

Or if you prefer to get your forecasts from NBC news, here is a headline:

“Now we know what will happen when the sun dies” 

“New study suggests our star will become ‘one of the prettiest objects in the night sky.”(3) Never mind that at the time they predict our suns demise, the earth will already be long gone according to their own predictions.  The astronomers had been arguing back and forth among themselves as to whether when the sun died it would create a planetary nebula.  This latest theory (latest computer model) says it will, and it will supposedly be spectacular to see.
These are just a couple of the many pseudo-scientific internet sites that predict the future of our planet, and the fate of our sun.  But what happened to the belief that “we can’t predict the future”?  Well, you might say, “this is different… these are scientists!”.  Yes, that is what they say.  But what is a scientist? And more importantly, what types of predictions for the future have scientist made?  What are their results and their credentials for predicting future events?
Well it turns out that scientists are quite good at predicting the future of a real time event in a laboratory if all the factors are known and contained, and the the basic processes of physics are completely stable. They can tell you what is going to happen in the next few minutes after you combine sodium and chloride in a test tube.  They can predict what will happen when gasoline and oxygen are allowed to interact in the presence of intense heat.  These momentary observations can be reproduced again and again in a laboratory or a test tube.  The results will be the same and are thus predictable.
But what are their credentials in predicting things even just a thousand years from now?  Has science ever done that? No.  Not yet anyway.
In fact predicting the future, it turns out, is actually quite difficult.  As written by Adam Keiper, in his blog on The New Atlantis, concerning uncertainties in predicting the future,

All of which is to say that, as you listen to our conversation here today, or as you read books and articles about the future of automation and robotics, try to keep in mind what I call the “chain of uncertainties”:

Just because something is conceivable or imaginable
does not mean it is possible.
Even if it is possible, that does not mean it will happen.
Even if it happens, that does not mean it will happen in the way you envisioned.
And even if it happens in something like the way you envisioned, there will be unintended, unexpected consequences(5)

 

Martyn Shuttleworth authored the following excellent discussion about predictive science.PDF version

Scientists and Soothsayers

“Prediction in research fulfills one of the basic desires of humanity, to discern the future and know what fate holds. Such foresight used to involve studying the stars or looking at the entrails of animals.

Obviously, few pay heed to such methods, in the modern world, but many people expect scientists to become the new soothsayers and predict where humanity, the environment, and the universe will end up. To a certain extent, most scientists regularly use prediction in research as a fundamental of the scientific method, when they generate a hypothesis and predict what will happen.

As part of humanity’s quest to understand nature, predictive science is much more widespread than before.

Much of this is due to the exponential growth in computing power, which allows gradually more detailed and accurate models. These are of great use in predicting the weather or natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis.

The other factor driving this growth of predictions in research is politics and economics. Predicting the weather benefits an economy by informing farmers about what to expect, and allows emergency services to predict when adverse weather may require action. Economics is prediction driven and, as the current economic crisis shows, incorrect predictions can be devastating, although whether politicians choose to listen to the advice of computer prediction models, if they disagree with their policies, is another matter.

With the millions of dollars invested by governments, or by oil companies using the predictions of geologists to know where to drill test wells, predictive science is only going to grow. However, this entire field of science and computing rests upon the same foundations that drove early scientists, the principle of making a prediction and setting out to test it.

Unfortunately, these predictions in science are at the whim of paymasters, whether in government or the private sector. This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions, but prediction in research will always drive the scientific method. That is my prediction, anyway! “(5)

You may have noted Martyn’s disdain for the effects that money, power and politics can have or science, when he states “This will always compromise the integrity of the scientists making predictions”.  And as you may have predicted, I agree entirely.

 

 

For much more on this topic see my earlier blogs on Science vs. Scientism, and Five Things Everyone Should Know About Scientism.

 

(1) http://www.sciencealert.com/what-will-happen-after-the-sun-dies-planetary-nebula-solar-system

(2) phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html

(3) http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/now-we-know-what-will-happen-when-sun-dies-ncna873041

(4) today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2009/aug/long-debate-ended-over-cause-demise-ice-ages-–-may-also-help-predict-future

(5) http://futurisms.thenewatlantis.com/

(6) https://explorable.com/prediction-in-research