Tuesday, June 19, 2007
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.
You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.