Meshing and Threshing Advantageously and Arbitrarily

There's an old saying which states that the "winners write the history books." Though this doesn't ring 100% true (or else we wouldn't be able to trust any history--nor would there be "two sides to every story"), it makes the point that the one who's victorious often gets to decide how things "were," are, and will be. It's something along the lines of the philosophy that "might makes right," whether true, just, or not.
However, in the field of science, dissenting views can be the spur to the horse of progress. The earth is round? The earth revolves around the sun? These weren't popular ideas at one time or another, but underdogs barked long enough and loud enough, backing their barks with sufficient evidential "bite," to dethrone reigning theories. Even if the primary theories aren't entirely innaccurate, minority positions can be the "cream" that cures imperfections.

Secularists have largely won the battle over science thus far. Quite frankly, they've been winning the battles for society at large, too. Unfortunately, they've left the battlefield quite damaged. Some of science is in a state of disrepair for the sake of secular domination. Despite what we know about "iron sharpening iron" and "gold being refined by fire" in the scientific fields, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are relatively silenced in the public sphere. The ever-spreading infectious Theory of Evolution is a disease that wants no competing virus. It's suspicious, isn't it? If evolutionists were really confident in their belief, they would encourage creationists to publicly make fools of themselves--to be "put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16) if evolutionists had a "good conscience." But they know that creationists are "always being ready to make a defense to everyone..." (1 Peter 3:15) Therefore, silence, not debate, is the preferred method of confrontation. The scientific elite, who wants to tell us "how things were," may cry out that we devious creationists will "deceive people," therefore efforts like the Creation Museum must be shut down. But if the evidence for evolution is so compelling and overwhelming, just show it to all, and creationists should have no answer. ...Still waiting... Speak and listen; don't filibuster and hush, which is essentially what the scientific establishment is doing when they continually point to "experts" and "scientific consensus" and never to cold hard facts and refutations of creationism. Besides, you would think that, if the veracity of Evolution is so irrefutable, creationists would be useful tools in simply polishing and solidifying the theory. That's my perspective, anyways, as a creationist, toward evolutionists. They challenge Christians to think more of God's thoughts after Him. They produce endurance. "Consider it all joy...when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance..." (James 1:2-3)

But, no, that's not the attitude of evolutionists. They decry the private Creation Museum, while controlling virtually every other outlet, including the school system.

Of course, all theories do not hold the same weight and thereby do not require the same level of recognition. If I say that both the earth and moon are made of cheese and only cheese, my voice won't carry very far--and rightfully so. But only the most ardent, arrogant, and ignorant atheists and evolutionists would place creationism in that category.

However, that's the point, isn't it? Those on that side of the spectrum--if not so extreme--do the categorizing, don't they? That brings us to the real gist of this post: Meshing and Threshing... But what do I mean? Simply that the secular, scientific elites artificially, arbitrarily, and advantageously separate and make inseparable what they so please in the fields of science.

In the first place, they collaborate--intentionally or not--historical, origins science and operational, observational science. If you hang around the Creation/Evolution Debate, you may often hear that creationism is unscientific because it "doesn't follow the scientific method." This statement is factual, but it is also inconsequential. It violates the laws of logic with its irrelevance and false dichotomy.

Now, let me clarify that--to believe in creation--one must have faith. Faith is intrical to salvation (Ephesians 2:8) and essential to God's approval (Hebrews 11:6). So I am not denying the faith aspect. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1); they do not prove His existence by the scientific method or prove the Creation Account. Christians have faith that the Bible is inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16), regardless of what scientists may hypothesize. I have no problem saying that, especially when I consider some of the preposterous theories and "evidences" that have arisen before being debunked.

What I do have a problem with is the proverbial "holier than thou" attitudes of evolutionists--that somehow believers in Evolution are "more scientific" than creationists, or that believing in Evolution or in no God doesn't take faith. Both creationism and Molecules-to-man Evolution fall outside the bounds of the scientific method, beyond the scope of observational science, and faith is a requirement for belief in either.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
...
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

(Evolution Exposed, Pg. 24)

Really, it's very much common sense that we can't repeat, control, test, or observe the origin of the universe and the things therein, no matter how it happened. It's just not possible. It goes back to the basic premise, "Were you there?" No one was...except God, who told us how it happened in His Word. But, yes, that's my presupposed philosophical point of view, which places this type of science in an entirely different category than, say, technology, yet Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken evolutionist, in a scathing article, called creationists hypocrites for driving cars!!! According to the book Evolution Exposed, three of the most common high school biology textbooks state that it "is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational science." (Pg. 21) How can this be?

Some may say that we can "see Evolution all around us." But this falls short on a couple of levels. Adaptation/speciation/micro-evolution--observed, observable, and compatible with creationism--are NOT synonymous with Molecules-to-man or Macro-evolution. The former does not prove the latter. Nor does either (micro- or macro-) prove theories such as the Big Bang or the eternality of the universe.

It is obvious that we do not--and will not--see macro-evolutionary changes, even if they do/did occur. Scientists may say that we simply "have not been observing for long enough." It's rather convenient, when you think about it. One can rid oneself of a plethora of bothersome questions about Evolution by this technique. After all, it "takes massive amounts of time." We'll all be long gone before enough time will have elapsed to expect anything dramatic to transpire.

But this very excuse illustrates the point that Evolution cannot lay a legitimate claim to testable, repeatable, observable science. In fact, even if we did observe, say, humans evolve into "extra-humans," it does not necessarily follow that amoebas definitively evolved all the way up to humans. That conclusion would be based upon the belief that the "present is the key to the past," just like a creationist conclusion would be based on the belief that the Bible--or God Himself--is the "key to the past."

Apparently, evolutionists recognize that this approach of stalling--you could even call it filibustering--pushing the problem into unwieldy amounts of time--only works so much and so far. So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence. After all, if missing links were to be found or the universe was demonstrated to be extremely old, it would go a long way towards swaying the debate to the evolutionists' camp.

Here's the catch: digging up fossils and rock layers unearth problems, not solutions, for the evolutionary outlook, unless you accept evolutionary explanations at face value. Carbon-14 dating? Radio-isotope? Fossil layers? Geologic layers? Transitional forms? Missing links? Living fossils? In all these areas, unreliability, insufficiency, bias/closemindedness, imagination/fantasy, or nonexistence plagues any attempts at a truly evidential basis for Evolution. Notice: preconceived notions required. If you already believe (or are brainwashed into believing) in uniformitarianism, in the ape man-to cave man-to modern man drawing, in the fish-to-frogs-to-reptiles-to-dinosaurs-to-birds chain, etc., etc., you probably can reconcile yourself with the problems that present themselves to portions of evolutionary theories--theories that are frequently devised out of not-so-very-thick air. This is what places the Theory of Evolution squarely in the camp of historical science, and mediocre historical science, at that.

And that brings us to the second stage of meshing, along with some threshing: science and naturalism, as well as science and religion. Creationists are accused of having "presuppositional beliefs." That supposedly excludes them from the realm of science. However, that's just not fair. First of all, such a hard stance would force scientists to always search for but never reach conclusions--never "choose a side," but rather be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14) Why would it do that? Well, because, as we've already discussed, neither creationism nor Evolution falls under testable, falsifiable science. Therefore, a concrete conclusion can never be reached without belief, something some people seem to think shouldn't be a part of science. Evidence in the realm of historical science requires interpretations, things that need a foundation. Secondly, it erroneously assumes that evolutionists and secularists in general don't have fundamental worldviews. (Moreover, who can blame Christians if their faith is strong enough in order for them to be skeptical of such things as Nebraska Man, "identified and drawn based on a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig." --Evolution Exposed, Pg. 221)

One of my favorite quotes, in a negative sort of way, is this one:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." --Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752) :423, Sept. 30, 1999

That's quite a closeminded creed, especially considering that naturalism is not interchangeable with science itself. Yet, science has been overrun by the "No Divine Foot" philosophy, making there appear to be no differentiation between the two.

Granted, I can see somewhat where naturalists are coming from. Superstititions hinder the progress of science. But naturalism itself becomes a type of superstition when one tries to explain away naturally something entirely un- or super-natural. Moreover, Christianity must not be lumped in with superstitions. Christians endeavor to "think God's thoughts after Him." Although His ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33), with Christ upholding "all things by the word of His power," (Hebrews 1:3) our God is a God of order (Job 38:4-6, 8-11, 33; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 31:35), who points us to nature (Proverbs 6:6; Matthew 6:26-20; Matthew 10:29), is omnipotent over nature (Job 38:11-12, 23; 41:11; 42:2; Mark 4:41), and is omniscient of nature (Job 38-40; John 16:30). Christians are called to see things as they really are, standing on a Solid Rock foundation (Matthew 7:24-25). "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12:2) "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) The Bible is scientifically accurate, and some discoveries are just recently being made as to the wisdom of God's commands on what and what not to eat. (See Jordan Rubin's book The Maker's Diet.)

To venture into the materialistic assumption that "this is all there is" is to risk missing out incalculably! If a Supernatural Being created nature, nature would naturally reflect back to Mr. Supernature Himself. The Bible says this is so (Job 12:7-9 ; Psalm 19:1 ; Romans 1:20). Belief in this Supernatural Being would unlock doors to otherwise unknown wisdom and knowledge. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "...who has known the mind of the Lord...?" Then he answers his own question, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16). Christians have access to "the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) God offers the only worthwhile perspective on everything. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26-27)

To say Christianity has no place in science is to assume that God does not exist. To say that only naturalism is acceptable is to assume there is nothing supernatural. To say that Christians or creationists have no place in science, or that they cannot be good scientists, is to deny scientific history. In essence, to reject Christianity's place in science is to claim science for one's own religion.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 20)

Let's take back science.

~Kingdom Advancer

You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.

You Got Something in Your Eye...

In contrast to several thousand other visitors--most of whom were happy for or at least interested in the opening of the Creation Museum--atheist, humanist, and evolutionist protesters were a pimple on the face of the Creation Museum's grand opening to the public on Memorial Day (which ended with a fireworks display pictured on the right). Or...from another perspective, were they just a beauty mark, a sign of a job well done? After all, if humanists and atheists were not up in arms about something like this, you'd have to wonder if a good job had been executed by those at Answers in Genesis. Jesus told his disciples not to be surprised if the world hated them (which they did). So, perhaps all the protesters and critics are/were more of a pat on the back then a slap in the face to Ken Ham and AiG.

Some of the signs held by the protesters read: Do you deny gravity too? Don't brainwash our children. It's [creationism] NOT science. A plane flew over pulling a sign with the message "Thou shall not lie." The makers of the Museum have been chastised for "instutionalizing" a "scientific lie."

All I can say to these people is: can I borrow your lines and signs? Because, I'd like to picket in front of public schools, college and university campuses, other museums, television studios which make nature shows, and publishing houses which print scientific textbooks.

Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Behold, the log is indeed in evolutionistic atheists' eyes! (Read just some of the problems with Evolution here, at Ambassadors of Christ.) Unfortunately, they don't feel compelled to listen to Jesus' words (obviously) or to subject themselves to the law of God (Romans 8:7). Rather, they show conditionally selective moral outrage--like decrying supposed lies of this Museum--when it's convenient for them and their purposes (Judges 17:6).

However, they would do well to heed Jesus' words in this case, as in all cases. Their volatile opposition will likely only rouse more interest into a topic that is attention-grabbing by itself in the unveiling of a $27 million edifice. If people look for answers, some will find them. And those answers--true answers--don't lead to an evolutionary outlook. So, indeed, what was meant for evil, God may mean for good (Genesis 50:20), for--in the least--those who love Him (Romans 8:28).

To demonstrate the "log" of the evolutionists, I am going to break down some of the token phrases I have heard and seen, starting with, "Do you deny gravity too?"

First off, atheists are the ones making the denial of all denials--denying God's existence (Psalm 14:1)--so that type of condescension on the part of atheists is not very sharp, though expected (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Secondly, creationists not only do not reject scientific studies, discoveries, and research, but the law of gravity is observable, operational science. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is in the realm of historical, origins science. It cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. No one was there to see the beginning of the universe (except God--from the creationist perspective). And evolutionists even admit today that we cannot expect to see macro-evolutionary changes occur in front of our eyes. Not to mention all the evidence against Molecules-to-man Evolution, all the hypotheticals, all the theoreticals, all the gaps, all the holes--none of which is similar to the law--not theory--of gravity. That's telling in and of itself: atheists put so much faith in Evolution that the person holding this sign equated it with a scientific, testable law. That's how important it is to them for their to be no God. How much must they really love sin?

Speaking of laws, this apparent opponent of a Creator God walks right into a question that she herself cannot satisfactorily answer: where did laws like the law of gravity come from? And what about the precision of the universe's laws and arrangements--a fact which, were it not the case, would make life nonexistent? (See The Privileged Planet.)

Next, we have the doozy, "Don't brainwash our children." This one may take the cake, along with the "institutionalizing a lie" claim. Believe it or not, I did not make these up. For years, and years, and years, evolutionists have had a veritable monopoly on the education of children and young adults...using public funds! (A good book detailing and analyzing the claims of three of the most common high-school biology textobooks is Evolution Exposed) Yet, they have the nerve to rebuke a not-for-profit organization for building a private museum attended by visitors voluntarily (even if a school took a field trip, it could be optional)! While other museums present millions and billions of years like accepted fact, heavily seasoning exhibits and episodes with evolutionary theory, some have the gall to attack the Creation Museum as an "institutionalized lie"! Where's the academic freedom, tolerance, relatavism, and openmindedness? It is apparent that true colors are on display, and that these people are not really that concerned with the "horror" of someone "cornering the market," but rather, with anyone who does not agree with them voicing their opinion.

And that leads me to the next line, which calls for "science, not superstition." First off, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for detractors of Christianity to refer to it as a "cult" or "superstition." These terms carry heavily negative connotations, so they serve the purposes of anti-Christians by appealing to a person's pride of reputation. (Most people don't want to be wrong or grouped with a faction upon which people look down.)

But who is really superstitious? Who is really paranoid? It seems that the atheists have an irrational belief--an irrational fear--of Christianity. Many of them avoid and/or decry anything having to do with God or the Bible as if it is a ladder with a black cat flying underneath it across their path on a witch's broom. Really, the claim of superstition is a hollow one, emotionally-charged in the attempt to bring about an emotional response.

But I haven't seen that attack all that often. One that I do see regularly is that creationism is "not science." Not only is this infinitely easier said than proven, but it is also simply another elementary technique, reaching the headline reader--not the dedicated researcher. It invokes a false dichotomy (Molecules-to-Man Evolution is not, in contrast, "scientific"), a sweeping generalization (Of course some creationists may be very unscientific, but certainly not all), and often a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy when the evidence for creationism's unscientificity is the lack of the scientific method (In historical, origins science, the presence of the scientific method of testing, repeating, controlling, and observing is impossible; therefore, either nothing in this sphere is scientific or the scientific method is not the barometer). These logical fallacies will have to be discussed more fully in a later post.

Finally, I should address the idea that the Creation Museum is teaching "lies." This accusation is unbacked and untrue. Conveniently, no evidence is presented to support such a claim, except the appeal-to-authority and bandwagon fallacies of the "scientific consensus" argument, faulty dating methods, and biased interpretations. Besides, to say the Creation Account is scientifically factual and provable would be--at this point in history, anways--lying; but to say that the Creation Account is true by God's Word and supported by scientific discoveries is not lying, for two reasons: 1) It presupposes faith in God's Word--if you throw that out the window, you throw creationism out with it, though evidence may still pull you in the direction of an Intelligent Designer; the Bible spawns creationism, and the science of creationism endorses the Bible; 2) The allegation of deception assumes falsehood; but, if the Creation Account is true, and science therefore (naturally) backs it up, and creationists believe it because of God's word compounded by the testimony of His Creation, there can be no lie. Of course, Evolution is not a lie, in and of itself, either. It's a theory--just like any other theory which can be imagined at any time, without being considered deceptive. However, teaching it as fact, or even close to fact, is dishonest.

Christians know that the Creation Account is indeed true, for Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17) How horrifically ironic is it that the Father of lies (John 8:44) would use the deceitful accusation of a lie to bury the truth?

All of this being considered, we must pray and support groups like AiG and efforts like the Creation Museum. The state-of-the-art, $27 million structure is a veritable "city on a hill"; AiG is "salt," attempting to be a preservative in one of the most decayed environments in the modern world--"light" in one of the darkest places: science (Matthew 5:13-15).

The Christian has become a benefactor, a volunteer, a painter, a carpenter, a construction worker, an engineer, a technician, a scientist, and one reviled, "so that by all means we might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)

~Kingdom Advancer

P.S. Answers in Genesis has been "Responding to Protesters' Propaganda" all week, and you can read their responses at their website.