“If Biology Remains Only Biology”

orange and black frog
Photo by Thierry Fillieul on Pexels.com

 

Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware, and he believes the current battles between “science” and “religion” on the theories of origins are avoidable.   He writes, in the article The Miracle of Evolution,

If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.(1) Here is one creationist’s attempt to unite the current teachings of evolution with the teachings of the Bible. But is it really this simple? Barr continues.

The question for science is whether the neo-Darwinian account of evolution is sufficient to explain all instances of biological complexity. Many scientists are supremely confident that it is, which is strange, given that so little is known about the steps by which some complex structures actually evolved.(1)

In a similar vein, Eric Hovind writes, scientifically speaking, “Evolutionist proponents of the big bang theory claim that planets and stars formed when bits of matter and gas were compressed spontaneously. But this violates Boyle’s law of gas established in the seventeenth century, which states that gases cannot be compressed without some intervening mechanism. So what is the evolutionists’ intervening mechanism? Nothing. It happened all by itself; it was a miracle. They likewise believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection. This is not science, however, and must also fall within the realm of miracle. In fact, evolutionists hold on to many more miracles (or assumptions) in their religion of evolutionism.”(2)

It is yet another example of secular scientists relying on miracles, “As is common in evolutionary literature, Brunet and Arendt do not ask whether hard parts (skeleton) evolved, but only how they evolved. According to the “rules of science,” questioning naturalism is forbidden. By limiting one’s explanatory toolkit to unguided natural processes, however, difficulties arise. There’s nothing like an appeal to miracles to get around a difficulty. As Finagle advised, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.”(3)

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite “language” composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. It’s hard for us to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes’ worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!(4)

“The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn’t come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it. So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.) (5)

Yet you will never hear these facts in evolutionary circles, nor in secular atheist college classrooms.  But the absolute truth is that neither the study of Science, nor specifically the study of Biology, is incompatible with belief in Creation.  They will in fact inevitably lead directly back to God.

 

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

(2) creationtoday.org/evolution-miracle-of-miracles/

(3) evolutionnews.org/2016/07/miracles_in_evo/

(4) http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/lifes-ultimate-question-does-god-exist/the-tiny-miracle-thats-toppling-evolution

(5) ibid

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

9 Facts Evolutionists Hope You Never Learn.

pexels-photo-1329296.jpeg
Photo by Magda Ehlers on Pexels.com

Scientifically speaking… someone lied to you.  When they told you “Evolution has been scientifically proven” or “Evolution was the mechanism by which life appeared and grew on Earth“… they lied. They probably even told you if you ever doubted evolution, you must be a religious fanatic, science denier, or a hopelessly ignorant person. (Also a lie.) But here are 9 SCIENTIFIC problems with evolution.  Just 9 are listed here, but there are thousands more..

  1. The fossil record does not support Evolution. For proof see my prior blog post “The Data in the Strata” and also see “Intelligent Design has Scientific Merit in Paleontology” (www.discovery.org/a/7271). As written by Casey Luskin, “ID predicts irreducibly complexity. Because irreducibly complex structures require all of their parts to function, they cannot arise in a gradual, step-by-step manner. If many characteristics of life are irreducibly complex, then ID leads us to expect that the fossil record will exhibit a pattern of abrupt appearance of novel, fully functional body plans that do not develop in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. This is precisely what we typically find in the fossil record.” (1) So in point of fact, the fossil record actually supports CREATION.
  2. Molecular biology has completely failed to demonstrate Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. See my prior blog post “Branch or Vine?”. That diagram you have seen in dozens of textbooks, some sort of “tree” or branched diagram allegedly illustrating the “inter-connectedness of all species”… It doesn’t exist in nature.  Nowhere in the real world have scientists found evidence that the species actually evolved, or are evolving, one from another. And genomics has virtually destroyed any possibility that such a tree could exist by showing patterns of genetic changes completely inconsistent with any known evolutionary paths.
  3. The geological strata do not support gradual evolution.  Archaeologists have almost universally agreed that life seemed to appear suddenly, more or less all at once, not gradually as predicted by evolution. (They will tell you it was millions of years in the past… but this also is unproven.)  Wikipedia states, “In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, were announced to have been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting “an almost instantaneous emergence of life“.(2) Note “almost instantaneous.”
  4. The Fossil record does not support gradual evolution.  There are no proven transitional fossils. (There there should be countless billions of transitional fossils if evolution were true.) As stated in Wikipedia, “More than 99% of all species of life forms, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinctSome estimates on the number of Earth’s current species of life forms range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described.”(2)  Yet of all these millions of living and extinct species, none have been proven to be transitional!
  5. There is no evidence of current evolution.  The rate of evolution required to transition from apes to man would have required extremely frequent changes (several positive mutations every year) in order to evolve in just a few million years. Yet  in hundreds of years, no one has ever seen any current signs of evolution! And of course, this does not even account for the fact that negative mutations VASTLY outnumber any possible positive mutations, and these too are largely missing!
  6. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  The law of abiogenesis states life cannot create itself.(3) This law has never been disproven. Evolution could never have occurred because life could never have begun.
  7. Even the most primitive forms of self-replicating life are incomprehensibly complex. The idea of a “primordial chemical soup” which  is transformed into a living cell so completely unscientific it is laughable. (4) A single living cell is more complicated in its chemical and electrical engineering processes,  as well as its manufacturing processes than the most advanced, largest city on earth!
  8. No “primordial soup” could have existed in the first place because the proteins would have of necessity been all isomers (not a random mix) and they would have been degraded by natural processes a thousand times more quickly than they could have ever formed. (5) Those ancient “experiments” from a hundred years ago which supposedly showed that the building blocks of proteins could have appeared accidentally when lightning hit ancient ponds were fundamentally flawed in dozens of ways.
  9. Evolution (and its best friend Old Earth Cosmology) have no explanation for why the earth or the universe is so perfectly fine tuned for life to occur. Things like gravity, radiation, rate of expansion, tides, temperatures, and many more universal constants are so finely tuned that even minor alterations would make life as we know it absolutely impossible. (6)

 

So, all things considered, the most plausible  SCIENTIFIC explanation for life on earth is… Genesis. 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

 

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

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

(3) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(4) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/300/5620/745

(5) http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/primordials.htm

(6) http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/are-the-laws-of-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life

Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture.

 

flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggests that humanity evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms, and eventually from some single celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.

 

 

Image result for image of the evolutionary tree

Branching diagram that appeared in Charles Darwin's _On the origin of species_, illustrating the idea that new species form from pre-existing species in a branching process that occurs over extended periods of time.

We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer”  the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail.  It is finally being discarded by many who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts.  You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY, and that evolution cannot explain morality.(1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the antithesis of evolution.

Evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste recently admitted that the project to build the tree of life is pretty hopeless, saying “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality“. (2) Or as stated by Michael Rose of UCM Irvine,  “The tree of life is being politely buried… What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”(3)

As written by Dr David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.(4) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!

To further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(5)

We have not yet examined the alternative view point, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine.  John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (6)

nature countryside grapes vineyard
Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

I have no intent to pursue this as analogy thoroughly here, except to say that how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, or with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.

The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ.  However the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”

Certainly that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity.  It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset.(7)

Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace.  But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom, or an improved standard of living for society as a whole.   We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.

Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in one sense that is true.  But each is connected and intertwined with the other. The sociological phenomenon of secular atheism, for example, which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution.  So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way , and the truth and the life“(8), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.

As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(9)

(1) evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#f2

(2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

(3) http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life

(4) (1) http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/tomball/opinion/article/The-fossil-record-offers-no-support-for-gradual-9373494.php

(5) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

(6) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” 

(7) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”  

(8) John 14:6

(9) http://www.veritas.org/oxford-atheism-to-jesus/

 

Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM

 

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.