What Are They Afraid Of?
From the time of the Scopes Trial in 1925 to the present, evolutionists and atheists have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours fighting the teaching of biblical creation. The main argument they use in their many court cases over the years is that creationism is religion not science. They claim that no credible scientist would believe in a young universe and young earth biblical creation.
Yet one of the principle philosophies of academia and scientific research is to put forth a theory and then investigate all possible solutions or explanations to support or disprove the theory. Most universities and high schools boast that they encourage their students to explore all possibilities when conducting research.
I have sat in classes at Arizona State University and have had professors tell our class that we were to be open to any and all conclusions to our hypothesis. After hearing that in my geology class I offered an explanation of the Genesis Flood for the massive sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon, I was told that was not an acceptable conclusion. In a number of my other classes such mammalogy, entomology, botany, parasitology, ichthyology, plant ecology, ornithology, wildlife biology, fisheries biology, genetics and Arizona flora; I would claim that speciation is not evolution as it goes in the wrong direction required for evolution and every one of my professors would tell me that my arguments were nonsense because it did not fit into what they already claimed to know.
These professors were not open to any other possible interpretation, while at the same time they professed to encourage students to be open to any possible solutions. When I would point out the inconsistency of what they taught and what they believed, they grew angry and threatened to fail me.
Ever since the 1968 Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas, evolutionists have fought long and hard against a view that they claim has no validity.
Organizations such as the National Center for Science Education, headed by Eugenie Scott, exist for the sole purpose to refute biblical creationism at every level of education. Scott has openly admitted that they will only accept a naturalistic and materialistic explanation: Creationists…claim that the rejection of the supernatural in modern science is a function of “naturalism” (materialism), a philosophy that defines reality only in terms of material causes. Because evolutionary scientists supposedly are caught up in a metaphysical viewpoint that rejects the possibility of a creator, creationists contend that evolutionists are unable to countenance evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Actually, modern science has omitted the supernatural for methodological, not philosophical, reasons….[W]e simply get better explanations by ignoring the possibility of supernatural intervention or causation. Much confusion exists between materialism as a philosophy, and the methodological materialism that informs all of modern science. It is logically possible to decouple philosophical and methodological materialism, and individual scientists who are believers do it all the time. Gregor Mendel was certainly not a metaphysical naturalist, but he developed his understanding of the rules of heredity using methodological materialism….I stress methodological materialism as a tool to understand the natural world better….1
In 1998, Scott again reiterated her stand on naturalism and materialism when she wrote: Most scientists today require that science be carried out according to the rule of methodological materialism: to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction). There is a practical reason for this restriction: it works. By continuing to seek natural explanations for how the world works, we have been able to find them. If supernatural explanations are allowed, they will discourage – or at least delay – the discovery of natural explanations, and we will understand less about the universe.2
Incidentally, Scott is a professed atheist and was one of the signers of the Third Humanist Manifesto. She is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and in 1998 was the recipient of the Isaac Asimov Award presented by the American Humanist Association.3
The National Academy of Sciences is one of those institutions that say one thing and do the opposite. In 1998, they published Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. In that publication, they state: One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief whenever a better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma… Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data—the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.4
However in Chapter 3 of that document, they purposely disallow any influence of theology upon science when they state: The demarcation between science and theology is perhaps easiest, because scientists do not invoke the supernatural to explain how the natural world works, and they do not rely on divine revelation to understand it. Another feature of science that distinguishes it from theology is its openness. Religions are characterized by their relative inviolability…5
I find it interesting that they state that religions are relatively inviolable and science is open, but is science as open as they claim to be?
I have often asked them to ponder what if God did create as He said He did. Wouldn’t that make all of their interpretations and conclusions erroneous? What if there was a worldwide flood some 4500 years ago and the vast layers we see are the result of that flood; wouldn’t that completely change all of their geological conclusions? I get the same response every time and that is that they cannot allow those possibilities because they are not naturalistic or materialistic and cannot be tested or observed. My usual response to that is tell me who observed all of the millions of years of evolution they claim to be scientific fact or how can they empirically repeat the test the processes? They can’t, so shouldn’t it also be disqualified from the realm of science as defined by both the NCSE and the National Academy of Sciences?
I could go on and on with the bias, but I covered a lot of this in my earlier article on the Bias of Unbiased Scientists.
Seeing all of the money and effort put forth to fight biblical creation, a theory that they claim has no scientific credibility, wouldn’t the best way to disprove it be to compare it to something better that makes more sense? One would think that it would be to their advantage to teach both evolution and creation side-by-side and allow the best theory to win, especially if they are so sure that their theory is right?
Their refusal to do so leads one to ask: “What are they so afraid of?”
They know that when all fields of science involving both evolution and creation, are compared side-by-side that evolution will not stand tall and erect as they claim it will. Eugenie Scott said it best when she said: You can’t win this by scientific arguments…6
And if evolution cannot withstand a fair comparison, it would result in a total upheaval of academia and many research facilities. NASA would be forced to re-evaluate the purpose behind the space program. Institutions like the Large Hadron Collider in Europe would have to rethink their research dealing with the Big Bang.
They not only will have to completely shed all of their apriori foundational scientific philosophies, but it also means that they will have to admit that there is a Creator God. Admitting the existence of the God of the Bible will also mean that they will be held accountable to God which will scare the Hades out of them and many will fight against it tooth and nail. They will have to change their foundations for morality, truth, and purpose for living.
Accepting the biblical account of Creation will also put them face-to-face with Jesus Christ. To realize that the only way to the Father and eternal life is through the Son, will be more than many of them will want to embrace.
I have long contended that evolution is nothing more than man’s attempt to hide from God, kind of like the old image of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to hide from predators. They may think they are hiding, but the only thing they are really hiding from is themselves. Without evolution, they will have to stand up and look at their Redeemer and Savior.
What do they have to lose? They think it’s their freedom to be their own god. In reality, they have everything to gain, mainly a saving faith and relationship with Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal life: That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have eternal life. (1 Peter 3:15).
References:
- Scott, Eugenie C., 1996, “Creationism, Ideology, and Science,” in Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, p. 514-515.
- Scott, Eugenie C., “’Science and Religion’, ‘Christian Scholarship’, and ‘Theistic Science’: Some Comparisons,” National Center for Science Education, March 1, 1998, www.NCSEweb.org.
- Sources include the NCSE website, Creation.com, and various other sources.
- Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5787.
- Ibid.
- Scott, Eugenie C., in her opening statement at the AAAS Conference: “The Teaching of Evolution in U.S. Schools: Where Politics, Religion, and Science Converge” Sept. 26, 2000.
21 Responses to What Are They Afraid Of?
-
-
New Products
In today’s article entitled, “What Are They Afraid Of”, I believe the answer is simple. According to Romans 1, it is the nature of carnal man to deny God. Romans 1:19-22,28a ” … 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, … 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;…”. So, here, I believe, we have the answer as to the “Why/What” they are afraid. Bottom line, if you acknowledge God, then you also know you will be held accountable.
John C
Decatur, Alabama
John – The section in Romans 1 that you quote actually refers to God’s judgment on a people that have turned to a sinful lifestyle (which includes homosexuality) and approves of that sinful lifestyle.
The verse which would best support the idea you are trying to make is 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.
I suspect I know what it is that “they” are so afraid of: that there is One out there Who Is beyond their ability to browbeat and bully into submission, and Who Is more powerful than they are. Their unholy delusions of godhood have gone to such a degree that, upon their respective demises, their little worlds will shatter into so many tiny pieces, even Humpty Dumpty would be hard pressed to help them put those world all back together again.
I’m just saying this as speculation, mind you…but the circumstancial evidence does add up.
If you believe in the One who you refer to and if that One is the God of the Bible, then there should be no speculation as He has given us His Word and record of history.
Outstanding article! I’m surprised you didn’t mention the evolutionary atheist that once admitted he clung to his worldview because of the sexual exploits he didn’t want to give up (I can’t remember his name now, but Dr. DJ Kennedy mentioned him several times when he would preach/teach about atheism). Surely an honest atheist for once.
I am pretty sure that was Huxley.
paulyD – I’m not sure who Dr. Kennedy was referring to but I have spoken to several former atheistic evolutionists who are now young earth creationist Christians. One of them was a college professor of biology. He told me that for years he questioned evolution because it didn’t fit with what he saw in biology; however he refused to abandon it for many years because he didn’t want to be accountable to a supreme being. Yet, the more he studied the natural world, he finally came to realize that the only thing that made sense was the biblical account of Creation and the Flood. After accepting Christ as his Lord and Savior, he realized that what he had feared all these years (having to be accountable to a supreme being), was foolishness and that he had been a slave to sin but now was free from sin through his faith in Christ.
The other atheistic evolutionist was an electrical engineer who had become an alcoholic because it was the only way he knew how to handle the stress he was under. A friend of his tried to share Christ with him but he continually rejected it. It wasn’t until after he lost his job and family because of his drinking did he finally listened to his friend. Out of desperation, he started to read his Bible and eventually it all started to make sense and finally gave his life to Christ. He told me that Christ replaced his alcohol and he has never regretted it.
Great article! I agree with both John C and John FT but would like to add that Satan is roaming around devouring (with deception) anyone that he can. For we know that he does not need to get people to worship him, but only needs to prevent as many people as possible from coming to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is one of the many lies that he uses to hurt God by keeping his children from knowing Him.
For this reason, we should never give up speaking God’s truth, in love so that as many as possible can be saved. Rmember 1Peter 3:15.
Common Man – Thank you for the kind words and please be assured that the number one goal of this website is to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ and give fellow Christians material and answers to use when they witness.
Fear is not an issue here. No theory involving some sort of supernatural interaction can convey any information (this is easily provable), so no such theory is of any interest to anyone doing science. We know for a fact that evolution occurs (there are at least six different methods of showing this); there was no worldwide flood anytime in human history [1]; and that the earth is 4,568,200,000 years old [2] — and these facts simply cannot be reconciled with the biblical tales — which are thus shown to be false.
1. Lulergue et al, Orbital and millenial-scale features of atmospheric CH4 over the past 800,000 years. Nature, vol. 453, 15 May 2008, p. 383.
2. Bouvier et al, The age of the Solar System redefined by the oldest Pb-Pb age of a meteoric inclusion. Nature Geoscience, vol. 3, Sept. 2010, p. 637. The age shown here is correct to within 0.01%.
Robert S – You keep stating that evolution is a fact and you give all of these references but you continue to fail to see the underlying issue in that ALL of the evidences you offer are based on assumptions that CANNOT be proven. You cannot prove that the earth is billions of years old because all of your dating methods are based on assumptions. The first assumption is that there were billions of years. If you are so into science and the dating methods to prove the age of the earth, then I strongly suggest that you read the works from the RATE group (RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!; Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth Vol 1; Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth Vol 2). These are highly qualified scientists, several of which worked in government labs (but oh, you don’t believe that they could do real science and believe in the Bible, so I guess you don’t accept that any of their work credible).
As I told you before, I admit that I cannot prove a young earth creation nor can you prove an old earth evolution. They are both based on our presuppositional beliefs which govern how we interpret the facts of science. Science in and of itself is neutral. Our interpretations of it are not neutral and biased due our foundational beliefs.
AT LEAST WE ARE HONEST ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT. WHEN ARE YOU GIONG TO BE HONEST AND ADMIT IT?
Or are you going to continue to hide your head in the sand like an ostrich and refuse to see the truth of where this entire argument lies, which is not science, but presuppositions.
And for your comment about nothing supernatural would lead anyone in to doing real science is an outright lie and you should know it! Most all of the scientists that are considered to be the fathers of their various fields made their great discoveries because of their belief in God and the biblical account of creation. Men like Newton, Kepler and others. Dr John Baumgardner created a huge computer modeling system of the Earth while working at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The program called TERRA is world recognized and Dr Baumgardner was able to create it based upon his modeling of the tectonics involved at the time of the Flood. Dr Damadian, invented the MRI and he openly admits that he sees that the laws of physics and medicine only make sense in the light of a Creator God.
For you to reject any and all science done in the name of Christianity and the Bible is the worst form of bigotry and prejudicial hatred that I have ever seen!
If you can’t be honest on our site, then I suggest you find one that will allow you to continue in your lies, hatred and prejudice!
Just beautiful,
Thanks so much Mr. Jolly.
Mark – Thanks. Kind words are greatly appreciated. While I am a sinful person and may not always provide the top information, I continue to strive to do the best I can.
Just a side note. Many scientists have disagreed on everything from evolution to anything Bibical. Frankly since there isn’t anyone around today that was there at the beginning no one can say there was no flood. No one can say exactly how old or young the earth is. It appears for everything that is supposedly ‘proved’ at a later point it again is ‘disproved’. I would trust the ‘Bibical’ tales first as they were written by the people there at the time. Makes more sense to believe someone who was there than someone who wasn’t.
Judy – Actually, there was someone around at the beginning and that was the God who created it all and He gave us His account of what He did. There were also 8 people that were eyewitnesses that survived the Flood and told us about it. And since all of Scripture is divinely inspired, God made sure that we would have an account of this catastrophic event.
As to whom to trust, it all comes down to whether you want to put your trust in man who wasn’t there and is always changing his facts and is very fallible or put your trust in an omniscient and omnipresent God who is incapable of lying or making mistakes?
It flies against all common sense, even if you believe in a God created universe, to base one’s arguments about the physical world on a personal belief in an inspired collection of words never meant to be used as precise arbiters in the investigation of natural phenomena. Words which were first verbally passed down through the years by fallible men (ever play the “telephone” game?), written down by more fallible men, copied and edited through the ages by more fallible men, selected from hundreds of other similar writings and authenticated by a group of more fallible men. These same words are now being interpreted in more denominationally conflicting ways than one can count by even more fallible men and women as they attempt to use those same theologically debated words not only to form and shape their spiritual life but also to determine the veracity of microscopic details that make up modern day scientific investigation. The article’s legitimate and well stated attack on scientific hypocrisy implodes with its first mention of the faith-distorted premise of a young earth or young universe. If you have the conviction of the truth of the core of your faith, then stick to the facts of the dispute with the evolutionists’ misuse of the scientific method and let the conclusions of that objective investigation for physical truth lead where it may, which if the author is right will be to the hand of God.
I look forward to checking out Schroeder’s book. I also agree with Hoite in that anyone who investigates the natural world in complete honesty and with absolutely NO preconceptions, will not be able to deny involvement of an infinitely intelligent master designer and creator. True seekers of the truth–will find truth.
Kim W – I have to disagree in that it is impossible for anyone to investigate the natural world with “absolutely NO preconceptions”. We all have foundational beliefs and we see and interpret everything in the world around us based upon those presuppositional beliefs.
Some years back I had cataract surgery to replace one of the clouding lenses in my eyes. After the surgery, I noticed that I saw colors differently. Blues were bluer and whites were whiter. I still had the natural yellowed lens in my other eye and by closing one eye and then the other, I could see the differences between them and how they affected my vision. My old lens affected they way I saw everything and colored my interpretation of the world around me. Our presuppositional beliefs are like the lenses in our eyes, in that whatever affects the lens also affects how we see everything around us.
As for Gerald Schroeder’s work, I strongly suggest you check out the articles that I suggested to Juntos.
Hoite – Oh ye of little faith. Do you believe that an all knowing and all powerful God is incapable of protecting His Word? How many times in history has the Bible been the target of destruction, and yet it continues to survive in a way that no other text ever has. The following verses also come to mind: Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
I would direct you to read the following articles: Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons? and How Did We Get The Bible?
Science and religion are strongest when they stand together. Check out Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder for an eye opening look at the “harmony between modern science and The Bible”.
Juntos – I am familiar with Gerald Schroeder and his teachings. However, I will defer to the following posts and allow them to show you why we would not endorse him: Gerald Schroeder and his new variation on the “day-age” theory: Part 1; Gerald Schroeder and a new variation on the “day-age” theory: Part 2; Response to a Gerald Schroeder fan.