Hypotheses, Intellectual Curiosity And Controversy = Scientific Truth?

shangaoma.com

Never has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of scientific information is pouring down on us and few can keep up with the torrent of new knowledge. But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge?

Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of new ignorance — new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable clothes of Scientific Knowledge?

It would seem this ought to be the wisest, most knowledgeable generation that has ever lived. But it is not! And there is a reason. Never in the history of the world have so many been speculating so much. Speculation, hypothesizing, intellectual guessing have become the lifeblood of the sciences — especially the social sciences. The result is an age typified by a chaos of ideas.

The reason? Only those facts which fit an hypothesis are concerned! The purpose of hypothesis is not eternal truth — only intellectual curiosity to see whether the hypothesis be so! No wonder the scholarly world is in confusion? That the genuine history of man has been rejected and forgotten. That Scripture is labeled “unscientific” and “myth”

WHY HYPOTHESES?

Scientific and historical journals are filled with “learned” conflicts and controversies. These conflicts are not due to a lack of factual material. There are often “too many” facts. Controversies in philosophy, in science, in education are the direct result of hypothesizing. Theories and hypotheses by their very nature breed controversy. What is needed is a true view of the factual material already available. Present material is more than sufficient to solve every one of the primary questions regarding Man, his origin in time, and the record of his experiences.

Can the facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible be reconciled? Not if the method of study now in vogue in the educational world is used! Crowning the heap of discarded theories with another hypothesis will not resolve the problems.

Yet a solution is possible. The facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the Bible are reconcilable. It is the hypotheses and theories of Science and Theology that are not! No one, caught up in the vicious cycle of intellectual guessing, finds it easy to divorce facts from hypotheses. But once one is willing to do that, the gnawing questions of science and history find answers.

Why haven’t men been willing to face facts, and forget hypothesizing? The answer is simple. Facts do not automatically organize themselves into clear and unmistakable answers. There is always the need of some kind of yardstick, some standard, to guide man in organizing the myriads of facts lying mutely before him.

A geological stratum by itself does not answer when? or why? A potsherd by itself does not reveal who? or when? Even a written record by itself often fails to convey motive, proof of accuracy, or history of transmission.

Scholars and scientists must of necessity resort to some external framework or yardstick by which the recovered facts may be judged. Only two choices are available — hypothesis or Divine Revelation. The educated world has chosen the former. It has, without proof, rejected the latter. Hypotheses appeal to human vanity, to intellectual curiosity, to the desire to hear of something new. Divine Revelation requires acknowledgement of a Higher Power, the subjection of human reason to the revealed Mind of the Creator. But human reason revels in its own superiority. By nature it opposes and exalts itself against Higher Authority.

No wonder educators take for granted that the facts of geology, of archaeology, or human history contradict the Bible. Not until human beings are willing to acknowledge God, to acknowledge His Authority, His Revelation, will they ever come to a satisfactory — and satisfying — explanation of Man and the Universe. Not until human reason is conquered will the scholarly world enjoy the privilege of understanding the meaning of geology, of archaeology, of history and the Bible.

Why don’t today’s educators know the answers to these problems? Because they have discarded the key that would unlock the answers. That key is God’s revelation of essential knowledge for man — the Bible. But men don’t want God telling them anything authoritatively. They therefore refuse even to test whether the Bible is authoritative.

Source: Compendium Of World History, Volume 2, by Dr. Herman Hoeh

Did Life Really Originate From Asteroid Microbes?

U of A scientist Christopher Herd with the Tagish Lake meteorite - http://www.vancouversun.com

Scientists are now fawning over a meteorite found in British Columbia, Cananda, supposedly containing evidence that asteroids are production sites for molecules such as amino acids which form the building blocks of life.

The space rock first crashed to Earth along the B.C.-Yukon border (Tagish Lake) in 2000, and now scientists are saying it contains important new clues about the building blocks of life and how they formed in the early universe more than 4.6 billion years ago.

“What we’re seeing are the ingredients of life,” said planetary geologist Christopher Herd at the University of Alberta. Herd and a team from NASA and several U.S. universities report in the journal Science today that they have found several types of organic molecules of “prebiotic importance” in fragments of the meteorite.

This indicates there may have been a “Goldilocks window,” when organic molecules formed on asteroids may have seeded Earth and other newly formed planets with the chemical precursors needed for life to emerge, Herd said. The analysis turned up a dozen different amino acids, which are used to build proteins and other molecules common in cell walls. (VancouverSun.com)

Herd believes that warmer temperatures in the asteroid and the presence of water and possibly certain minerals provide a good environment for certain chemical reactions needed to produce organic molecules, a class of carbon-based chemicals that living things are largely made of.

However, looking to microbes as early evidence of the building blocks of life, without substantial support, is merely straining at a gnat, and as evidence for life this is pathetic. But we shouldn’t be surprised at the waves this research is making, because in 1996 researchers also claimed they had found fossil bacteria on a meteorite from Mars. Eventually, most scientists decided that what the overeager scientists were really looking at was simply a rock.

How Science Came To Reject The Bible

Some believe the Bible says the heavens and the earth were created only about 6000 years ago. Even many scientists assume this is what the Bible teaches. And they scoff. But is this really what Genesis 1:1 teaches?

The truth is plain. Without realizing it, some have been believing a fable that sprang from the dark ages — when people knew little about the Bible except what was taught to them by churchmen, who themselves were ignorant of what the Bible really taught!

Genesis 1:1, in the King James translation, says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

First, notice what it does NOT say. It does not say “About 6000 years ago …” — or “in 4004 B.C., God created the heaven and the earth.” It says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

When was “the beginning”? Genesis 1:1 just doesn’t tell us! And there is a reason.

What Genesis 1:1 does reveal is that the heaven and the earth had a beginning. This scripture makes it plain that the universe was created. Genesis 1:1 emphasizes who (in the beginning) created the heaven and the earth! It points us to God, as Creator of the universe.

Genesis 1:1 has been universally misinterpreted. Here is how it happened.

“… Archbishop Ussher … in the years 1650 to 1654, published a chronology {supposedly} based upon the biblical record. His dates were accepted for nearly two centuries, though geologists reading the record of the rocks were early convinced that he had seriously erred when he stated that the earth had been created in the year 4004 B.C., on the 26th of October, at 9 o’clock in the morning!” (H. E. Vokes, “How Old is the Earth?” from “The Illustrated Library of the Natural Sciences”, Vol. II, p. 1155.)

“Lucy” Fallacy Based On Conjecture, Not Science.

worshippingchristian.org

An “Institute For Creation Research” article which recently caught my eye was about a human-looking bone discovered in the Hadar Formation in Ethiopia, supposedly belonging to Australopithecus afarensis.

Australopiths are extinct apes known only from fossils. “Lucy” is the most famous example, and she was long thought to represent an evolutionary transition between ape-kind and mankind. The latest discovery is taken as additional evidence that human ancestors gradually morphed from tree-dwelling apes.

So what does this newly described bone actually prove? Well, nothing less than it looks just like a human fourth metatarsal. Its description, published in the journal Science, clearly showed that the foot bone is within the range of modern humans and does not match any metatarsals from living apes or show any hint of being ape-like.

In fact, the foot could not look like ours because prior finds showed that Lucy’s foot was actually configured like a hand, with a thumb-like big toe projecting sideways. A strange fact to be omitted, for sure, since this means their conclusion is based on mere speculation that the human-looking bone belonged to an ape. In fact, Lucy-like specimens have indicated characteristic flat ape feet with curved toes, not arched feet as the media have claimed.

If you will notice the picture in this article, it shows 20% of the bones we have found of a supposed Lucy. Now, is forensic science that good at creating facts from so little information? After all, it’s not like reconstructing a skeleton at a crime scene. We know what a modern person looks like, so filling in the missing pieces is so much easier. But in Lucy’s case, we don’t have the missing information. All we can really determine from the 20%  data we have is that the the long bones help us in in determining height and stature. The rest of the 80% we are told is conjecture, not real science.

So the question remains: Is one more bone singled out from a scrap heap of “greater than 370” individual bones the best evidence for an upright-walking ape? As the article stated, this bone has not proven that Lucy walked, but instead illustrates how improper science leads to flawed conclusions.

Read the complete article here – www.icr.org

Neanderthal Man DNA Disproves Evolution!

Editors Comment: Once again, evolution is being shown as an amateurish attempt to discredit God. The following article from the Trumpet.com shows that DNA from Neanderthal man is so similar to humans, that the difference is insignificant. Seems Neanderthal man is nothing more than pre-flood humans with a lot more muscle than his modern, soft counterparts.

————————————————————-

johnberardi.com

After years of anticipation, the genetic code of Neanderthal “cavemen” is being decoded. And it is unraveling the theory of evolution. Apparently Neanderthals are a little more closely related to humans than expected. How close? Let’s just say that the man Aunt Thelma married may really be a “Neanderthal” after all.

According to a May 6 Science article, the Neanderthal genome sequencing is nearing completion. It is not complete yet, but what scientists have found so far is astounding: Humans and “Neanderthals” are practically identical at the dna code level.

The researchers used dna captured from the nucleus of cells found in three bone fragments from three different female Neanderthals found in Croatia. The scientists then compared the Neanderthal genome to the human at 14,000 protein coding gene segments that differ between humans and chimpanzees. In doing so, they looked at over 3 billion combinations of four key protein molecules.

What did the scientists find? Simply put: Neanderthals are human. There was virtually no difference between the two codes. The few differences they did find were so slight that researchers say that they are functionally irrelevant—and that if more Neanderthal genomes could be compared there might be no differences at all!

But that is not all the scientists found. The data suggests Neanderthals are as closely related to humans as Chinese are to Germans, or French to Javanese. Furthermore, the genetic material analyzed indicated that Neanderthals and humans interbred and produced offspring that interbred—and regularly.

Uncle Jed’s jutting eyebrow? Chalk that one down to dna passed down from generation to generation.

“Whatever our differences, they’re not in the composition of your building blocks,” reports Wired Science. The “Neanderthal genome shows most humans are cavemen.”

Did you get that? All those supposed pre-man, caveman bones are actually just plain old human skeletons.

It is a startling admission for evolutionists because it throws a monkey wrench into conventional evolutionary theory.

Have Scientists Finally Created Life?

Editors Comment: So scientists are supposed to have created artificial life by producing a living cell powered by man made DNA. The team took the genome of a simple bacterium, synthesized the gene sequences it needed and put them together. This synthetic genome was then put into another, empty bacterial cell and left to its own devices. Lo and behold, it flourished, and supposedly man had replicated life.

It all has a very “awesome” feel to it, but they don’t answer these simple questions:

1. Did they design and construct the host cell from nothing? No they used an existing one.
2. Did they design and create or copy the genetic code? Copy.
3. Did they create the computers or the materials used to put this thing together? No.
4. Why did the host cell begin multiplying after the new code was placed in it? Because that’s what God (the Master Programmer) created it to do!

It’s almost like me taking the spec sheet of a certain kind of engine, putting that engine together and then placing it into a different car than what it was designed for. Yes it’ll run, but that doesn’t mean I “created” anything. I just used materials that were already there. Now there may be some benefit to what they made, but I don’t agree that they “created”. I think they just “copied” using existing materials. Vroom vroom!

Check out the article below from the Trumpet.com for a better perspective.

———————————————————————————–

Have Scientists Finally Created Life?

Supposedly scientists finally did it. “Scientists Create Synthetic Life in Lab” trumpeted the Associated Press. bbc News announced an “‘Artificial Life’ Breakthrough.” “Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life,” proclaimed Wired Science.

After more than a century of trial and error, scientists say they have finally created life. But have scientists really disproved the law of biogenesis? Can life come from something besides life? Can it come from a test tube?

On May 21, the Wall Street Journal said humankind has potentially entered a “new era in biology.” For the first time, scientists “have created a synthetic cell, completely controlled by man-made genetic instructions,” it reported.

“This is literally a turning point in the relationship between man and nature,” one molecular biologist said. “For the first time, someone has generated an entire artificial cell with predetermined properties.”

The project’s leader, Craig Venter, said, “These are very much real cells” while simultaneously being “pretty clearly human inventions.”

Science Is Dying

Editors Comment: The following article from the December 4th Wall Street Jounal encapsulates a runaway train of doubt in science, as the accounts of the East Anglia emails become mainstream. Science is at a crisis point, and as th article points out, it has become just another faction – politicized and messy.

———————————————————————————–

Science Is Dying, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2009

http://www.funnybones.com.au

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn’t only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called “the scientific community” had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry.

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because “science” said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

The Climate Emails

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and “messy” as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine.

The East Anglians’ mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming’s claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State’s Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton’s Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as “the precautionary principle.” As defined by one official version: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” The global-warming establishment says we know “enough” to impose new rules on the world’s use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science’s traditional standards of evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted “varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues.” Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

The Obama administration’s new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled “Law and Economics for a Warming World,” Ms. Heinzerling wrote, “Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy. . . .”

If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Life In Space: If You Can't Find It, Redefine It!

According to a BBC News article, Nasa’s experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success. The space agency smashed a rocket and a probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice. Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water-ice and water vapour.

So what does this mean for us? Though we know the moon is devoid of life, the fact that water has been found on it means that this substance could be found on other planets. And water is, of course, is the only substance known to support living organisms.

This leads us to an interesting observation. After decades of finding that space is devoid of life, scientists which often mock the notion of a God as Creator, believe they may have found the answer: redefine “life.”

Why? Because surely if life springs forth as a result of evolution, we would see it developing somewhere else in the universe in addition to our rather tiny planet. Yet, despite the billions spent on deep space telescopes, manned missions to space, probes to Mars—and despite seeing galaxies farther away than anyone thought possible—no one has found even a blade of grass, much less sentient life.

And so the  National Academies of Science has have come up with a novel approach to the problem: simply redefine what the word life means. Their report gives the following criteria for life as an alternative to nasa’s current expectations:

• A thermodynamic disequilibrium of some sort, from which energy can be harvested

• A chemical environment that allows the persistence of covalent bonds

• A liquid environment

• A molecular inheritance system that can support Darwinian evolution

With these dumbed down criteria, the proper conditions for life in space have already been found. Most places in the universe have some sort of thermodynamic disequilibrium, and many have liquids—just not water. And so the ultimate claim of scientists is that living organisms could develop in conditions completely foreign to Earth. And now that nasa has new criteria available for its use, they continue to find no life outside of their own globe of existence.

The next question then begs – why make such a profound push to find life in space? Because the evolutionary theory depends on it. If life really evolves, the evolution of life in space would be scientifically equivalent to the coming of the Messiah. Scientists hold their beliefs about the origins of life on faith—and the emptiness of space proves it.

Instead of redefining life in a pathetic attempt to plug holes in the evolutionary dogma, we should ask instead why space is devoid of life. Look the obvious in the face and try to define it first, rather than chasing the evolutionary tail.

Even religious teachers offer no reasonable answers as to why God created an entire universe filled with stars, planets, black holes, comets and nebulae—and then left it vacant except for a single planet in the Milky Way. Many now try to marry the evolutionary theory with a concept of creation, making God out to be a complete liar.

But there are definitive answers in the Bible which help us to  better understand why science can’t answer fundamental questions—and how this links to your incredible human potential. All you have to do is read this book.

Scientists Pull an About-Face On Global Warming

“Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn’t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no? … When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence? Latif is one of the leading climate modelers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc). He has contributed significantly to the ipcc’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference—an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change—Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.” …

“How much?” he wondered before the assembled delegates. “The jury is still out.” But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. …”

Who knew?

Source: Calgary Herald, September 19, 2009

What Spokesmen For Science Are Not Telling You About Evolution!

Is belief in a living intelligent Creator unscientific? Is the scientific method the only way to view reality?

The existence of a Creator is generally viewed by spokesmen for the scientific establishment as incompatible with objective reasoning and the scientific method. What guarantee, if there is a Creator, do we have that we are not dupes of “cosmic practical jokes” such as being placed in a young universe “created with an appearance of age”?

Has that Someone gone to a lot of trouble to produce fossils, even with worn-down teeth and arthritic joints, in order to trick us humans into thinking we evolved? Would a superior Being continually meddle with the laws of nature, thereby confounding the results of scientific experiments and making such results meaningless? These questions demand answers.

Was There a Beginning?

Modern science has made many amazing discoveries about our universe. These are nearly always presented to the layman in the language of evolution. But do these discoveries genuinely support evolution — or the opposite conclusion? Just what should we conclude from the evidence of scientific investigation?

The origin of the universe has been debated by astronomers, physicists, philosophers and theologians for centuries. Has the universe always existed? Did it come into existence at some definite time in the past? Many theories — theological and scientific — have been proposed and then discarded as new discoveries were made. In recent times, one theory — the big bang theory — has come to be accepted by many scientists as more consistent with the data than any other.

The big bang theory proposes that the entire universe exploded into existence in an instant of time. Physicists now claim to be able to project backward into the past to within one billion billion billion billionth of a second of the big bang (Science Digest, May 1981). Using known laws of physics, they theoretically tell what conditions would have been like within such a small time unit immediately after the big bang.

To accept the big bang theory, one has to believe that the entire universe came into existence suddenly and dramatically in an infinitesimally microscopic moment of time. Does that sound like the slow, gradual unfolding of evolutionary processes?

A few things bother scientists about the big bang theory. On the one hand, they observe inexplicable uniformity on the large scale, but, on the other hand, “clumpiness” on the small scale. There is also something they call “flatness” of the universe that requires special initial conditions. Moreover, the occurrence of the big bang itself seems to violate known physical laws.

In puzzling over these problems, scientists use expressions such as, “Someone had to time it very precisely,” “The conditions of the universe were specially arranged,” and “How did the universe manage to go ‘bang’ in such an improbable way?” (Science News, September 3, 1983).

So, the origin of the universe could not possibly be the result of a cosmological pipe bomb that somehow produced itself and just blew up.

Is there an explanation that agrees with the data? There is! The real big bang was a well-planned, deliberately executed act of CREATION! How would you expect a super powerful divine Being to bring forth an entire universe? With a small fizzle, a limp thud or a weak whimper? Of course not! The creation of the universe was accomplished with a glorious display of light, heat, matter and energy — a display that still reverberates throughout space and only recently has been described by scientists as the big bang!

Thousands of years ago David wrote: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1). The marvels known today — the incredible size and power of the stars, the enormity of galaxies, awesome phenomena such as supernovae, pulsars and quasars — tell us more about the glory of God than David could have ever imagined!

Age of the Universe

How old is the universe? The answer to this question is almost always misunderstood by creationists and misused by evolutionists. Creationists generally believe, falsely, that the universe is hardly more than 6,000 years old. On the other hand, many evolutionists falsely suppose that the great antiquity of the universe somehow “proves” evolution.

First of all, the Bible does not say the universe was created 6,000 years ago. It simply says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1, Revised Authorized Version). The physical evidence shows a universe and earth of great age. At the Grand Canyon alone one can see with the naked eye the results of geological processes that would require immensely more than 6,000 years to complete.

Further evidence from radiometric dating and astrophysics pushes the age of the universe back to more than ten billion years — or ten thousand million years for our British readers.

Evolutionists seize on these millions of years out of necessity. After all, they believe that given enough time, anything can happen. Apparently, some creationists also believe that given enough time, evolution could happen. Otherwise, why would they so desperately attempt to squeeze the history of the universe into a few thousand years in spite of stubborn facts to the contrary? Both viewpoints are wrong!

Necessity does not prove anything. You need air to fly an airplane. Just because you have air, that doesn’t mean you automatically have an airplane without the need of a designer. In the same way, just because you have billions of years, that does not make evolution occur. The great age of the universe does not in itself “prove” evolution or creation.

But what does the age of the universe tell us? Why would a Creator make it so long ago and maintain it? Not only merely to “declare his glory,” but for an astounding purpose!

The Creator is eternal. He inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15). What better way to teach temporary human beings something of the concept of eternity, than to put them into a universe that is millions upon millions of years old?

Life Demands a Life

The earth teems with millions of forms of life — animals and plants of many distinct characteristics. Do these life forms give evidence for evolution?

In two previous articles in The Plain Truth (September 1981, U.S. edition; February 1983, all English language editions), we have shown the utter mathematical improbability of even the “simplest” components of life, let alone life forms, coming into existence and developing through evolution. Mutations and natural selection notwithstanding, there is no evidence that life “evolved” — the missing links are still missing.

But life does teach us something about the Creator, something very important, which neither evolutionists nor theologians understand — something fundamental about God’s plan!

Life forms reproduce after their own kinds. This fact in itself contradicts a basic tenet of evolution. (By the term “kind,” we do not mean the intentionally limited definition of “species.” For instance, there could be many species such as lions, tigers, etc., within a “cat kind.” But there is a total distinction between the “cat kind” and the “dog kind,” for example.)

Evolution requires major changes in already existing life forms by means of natural genetic reproductive processes. (That is, invertebrate to vertebrate: fish to amphibian to reptile to bird, monkey to ape and hominid, and hominid to man.) There is not one shred of proof in the fossil record that genetic changes of this magnitude have occurred — or are even remotely possible — by any known biological process. A careful study of the anatomy and behavior of numerous creatures clearly shows how preposterous such an idea actually is. Kind reproduces its own kind! Only the creative process could account for the geologic record and the contemporary world.

But the fact of reproduction after its own kind also contradicts the teaching of nearly all theologians about the purpose of God.

Does the Creator Meddle?

Would it make any sense for a living intelligent supreme Being to try to thwart legitimate scientific inquiry by “monkeying around” with the laws of nature? Would a Creator use cosmological trickery to deceive human beings about the creation they inhabit? The real Creator does not operate that way!

“The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens” (Prov. 3:19).

“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him. … A false witness that speaketh lies …..(Prov. 6:16, 19).

The Creator would not create a universe or even a planet earth that was itself a false witness. That would hardly “declare his glory” and “show his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).

Does that mean the Creator never intervenes? It’s very much like an airplane with an automatic pilot. The automatic pilot maintains the direction, speed and altitude of the airplane. However, the human pilot can override the automatic pilot at any time.

What we call laws of nature are like the automatic pilot. The Creator does on rare and usually unique occasions decide to override the “automatic pilot.” But there was only one parting of the Red Sea. If the Red Sea parted every full moon, we would certainly expect to find a physical explanation, not a supernatural one.

Spectacular divine interventions are unique and do not permanently alter the “laws of nature.” Similarly, miracles that affect an individual, such as a divine healing or an inexplicable protection from serious bodily injury, involve only a temporary or momentary alteration or cessation of existing physical, chemical or biological laws.

As more scientific discoveries are made, whether at the galactic level or the subatomic level, there is only more evidence of law, design, harmony and order — more evidence of an intelligent, ever-living, superpowerful Creator!

“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” (Rom. 1:20).

So the next time you read about the wonders of nature or watch a television program describing some fascinating scientific discovery, don’t be misled by evolutionary terminology and bias. Realize that you are seeing the handiwork of a master Creator!

Source: Plain Truth, 1984

Note To Evolutionists: The Bible Supports Modern Science

Creation Of The Earth - http://www.examiner.com

God gave the Bible to man as the basis of all knowledge. Any “knowledge” contrary to the information revealed by God in his word is untrue.

But what about the scientists’ claim that the earth is perhaps billions of years old, and that the fossil record in the rocks proves their theory of evolution? Is there any truth in either of these statements?

The Bible nowhere tells us when the earth was created. However, biblical chronology reveals that man has been on this earth for almost 6000 years. How can we use this knowledge to understand the record in the rocks?

Genesis 1 the key

Using the facts of science, let’s compare them with the teachings of the Bible. In Genesis chapter one, the six days of creation are well known to Bible students. These were six literal days of 24 hours duration. Let’s examine the Bible’s account of events on these days and see what they reveal. We will dwell on animal and plant life mentitioned in the account and note the description of this new creation.

On the third day, God said “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Gen. 1:11).

Now let’s examine the geology books again and discover what the facts of science reveal. We’ll find a direct correlation between the revelation of the Bible and the findings in the rock layers! Notice this admission:

“Suddenly, a rapid diversification and radiation of the flowering plants occurred. Seward called the upper Cretaceous ‘the dawn of a new era’ and Lasquereuz many years ago observed that ‘the flora of the globe has become modified as by a new creation.’There has been no adequate explanation for this apparently sudden modernization of the earth’s flora. The angiosperms appear in familiar form, not in small variety but in great numbers: of existing families and genera. It is this perplexing paradox which has obscured the origin of the angiosperms” (Principles of Paleobotany, William C. Darrah, page 219).

Here then is direct geologic confirmation of the scriptures. The plants described in Genesis 1:11 appear suddenly in the geologic record.

https:/.../bvghosting/garden/flora_fauna.html

Gen. 1:11 would also include  the grasses of the field, the fruit bearings shrubs, vegetables, cereals, and the other seed and fruit bearing shrubs, which are known as angiosperms. Is it only coincidence that all these suddenly appear in the geologic record? Of course not!

There are many other “coincidences” when we compare the geological record with the Bible account of Creation in Genesis 1. The fifth day of creation saw the addition of fish and birds to the earth (Gen. 1:20-23). All geology books assert that fish have been on this earth long before man existed. If this is true, then why are fish included in the creation account in Genesis? Remember, the animals and plants in general, as described in Genesis, are those which are associated with man.

The plain truth is that when geology books mention fish in the Paleozoic Era, they are not generally referring to the fish which today populate the waters of the earth.

“Most of the modern families [of fish] and a few existing genera probably date from the Eocene {a sub-division of the modern era]” (General Zoology, Storer, page 610).

This is further substantiated by the following admission from the book “Creation by Evolution:

“In the following Cretaceous seas there were a few fishes that had the bony support of the tail as well formed as that of most existing bony fishes; indeed the reign of the modern thin-scaled bony fishes, completely adapted for rapid movement in water had begun, and the only subsequent changes where those which have given almost endless variety to this thoroughly efficient race” (page 131).

Thus, those fishes associated with dinosaurs did not have the thin scales of modern fish, but had hard enamel like plates. The modern fish which we have today, appeared at the time of Adam, as Genesis records and geological findings validate.

As we have already noticed In Gen. 1:20, the bird family was also created on the fifth day. However, this does not include the winged reptile – with wings, claws, teeth and long tail bone – which scientists named Archaeopteryx. It was not until the modern era that true birds appear

Modern types of birds, all toothless, appeared before the close of the Cretaceous, and in the Eocene [a division of the Cenozoic – the era of man] most of the present orders were represented” (Historical Geology, page 435).

Thus, modern true toothless birds definitely were not present before the Cretaceous Period which basically divides the world of the dinosaur from the world which existed after Adam’s creation. Here again, the findings of geology substantiate the teachings of the Bible!

On the sixth day, God created the cattle, and creeping things [insects], and the beasts of the earth after his kind” (Gen. 1:24). Modern classification of animals places the cattle and beasts in the class of Mammalia. These, as we have seen previously, are so characteristic of the Cenozoic (modern) Era that it has been rightly called “the age of mammals.”The curtain which rang down suddenly on the disappearance of the reptilian world, just as suddenly introduced the “age of mammals”- the creation described in Genesis :24-25!

Why the sudden change of life forms?

Something mainstream religion does not understand is that there is a time lapse which occurred between Gen. 1:1 and 1;2. The earth was created at an indefinite time – perhaps millions or even billions of years ago. Man however, has been on this earth only about 6000 years, as proven by biblical chronology and supported by the historical records of many nations.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 tell of the time when the great archangel Lucifer – who ruled the earth before Adam’s creation – rebelled against his Creator and fought God’s loyal angels for control of the universe. In his rebellion, he led away one third of the angelic world (Rev. 12:4). Jude 6 tells us of this very same time. Satan did not want to remain on the earth as the angelic servant of God – even though the whole earth was then as beautiful as the Garden of Eden – but he became jealous and tried to take away the authority of God (compare Is. 14:13-14, and Jude 6). It was at this time that the archangel Lucifer became Satan.

This great battle for the control of the universe caused massive destruction upon the earth. Animals and plant life of the types that then lived were destroyed, rapidly buried, and fossilized. The earth became chaotic and void (as Gen. 1:2 is more properly rendered). Life was taken from the earth so that when God rebuilt the surface of the earth and created man and the many new life forms described in gen. 1 and 2, God commanded man to replenish – or repopulate – the earth (Gen. 1:28).

The word replenish literally means “to refill”and would not have been used if life had not been on the earth in an age before Adam.

The same word is used in Gen. 9:1 after the flood in Noah’s time had completely destroyed all animal life except that which survived in the ark. The earth had to be once again “replenished”at the time of Noah! Thus, this sin of the angels was therefore before the time of Adam’s creation. Remember, it was very soon after Adam’s creation that Satan tempted Eve (Gen. 3). Lucifer had alreadyfallen.

Remember also, that it was on the first day of creation – shortly before the creation of man – that the earth was without form and void (Gen. 1:2). The first six days recorded in Gen. 1 describe the surface of the earth being reformed out of a chaotic condition. Yet, Isaiah 45:18 plainly tells us that God did not create the earth in this condition of a void wasteland. The earth became chaotic at the rebellion of Satan BEFORE the creation of man.

The truth now becomes clear. The earth had been populated by various forms of plant and animal life before Adam. At the rebellion of Lucifer against the authority of God, the earth was thrown into chaos and a time of “great dying” and “time of trial” ensued. Many animals vanished from the earth at the end of the Mesozoic, never again to be found in the later rock strata. God did not give man a hostile reptilian world – filled with dinosaurs – to inhabit! Instead, He provided man with a special creation suited for man and his needs.

Present world for man

Let’s now examine more closely why many new forms of life appear in the Cenozoic Era with man. Gen. 1 & 2 will again provide the key. Notice the importance to man of these plants and animals in Gen. 1:11-12, that were created with man in this admission:

“They [the angiosperms, or our modern plants] supply nearly all the plant life for the mammals [which also, remember, appeared suddenly at this time] that now dominate all other life upon the earth. Angiosperms provide the nuts and fruits of the field, the grasses of the prairies, the cereals which furnish fodder and grain for man and his domestic animals, and all the vegetables and fruits that man has cultivated, to say nothing of the flowers that add so much pleasure and inspiration to human surroundings” (Historical Geology, page 336).

These plants did not inhabit Lucifer’s world before man because Lucifer and the angels did not need them. God not only created man, but He created with and for man a world suitable for him. Man could not have survived on the earth before this time.

In relation to sea life, notice this quote from the book Creation by Evolution:

“It is also interesting to note that the fishes which achieved these latest developments [thin scales] include nearly all those that are used as food by man today”(page 131).

As we have seen previously, the modern thin scaled fish – edible for man – appear in the Cretaceous rocks. Here again we see scriptures wholly backed up by the facts of science. Both the time elements of their appearance and their usefulness to mankind are again confirmation of God’s word.

The same is true concerning the true birds which appear in the Cretaceous rocks. Birds are very useful to man for food – as in domestic birds – and for holding a check on insects, weed seeds, and rodents. The beauty and song of birds were especially designed to please man’s senses. The flying reptiles of the pre-Adamic worlss would hardly appeal to man’s tastes or compare to the modern birds in usefulness.

The importance of mammals to man in immense – in the role of providers of food, clothing, and beasts of burden. The same could never be said of animals existing in the pre-Adamic world.

Dinosaur mystery made plain

In summary, we have seen how the Bibe does not tell us earth’s age, but does tell us that man has been on the earth about 6000 years. Before the age of man, the earth was filled with animals and plants which characterized Lucifer and his host. The great dinosaurs and other forms of Lucifer’s world were buried in vast fossil graveyards as a result of Lucifer’s rebellion. Later, just before God created man, the earth had to be made into a liveable habitation for him (Gen. 1 & 2. God created the animals and plants necessary for man during the six days of creation week.  Fossils of all plants and animals are , generally speaking, the result of Noah’s flood or other events which have occurred in the past 6000 years.

We have briefly seen how the two great divisions of life on this earth as recorded in the geological record coincide with the teaching of God’s word. There is no contradiction between the facts of science and God’s inspired revelation to man.

But mankind has rejected God from his knowledge and wishes to substitute his own theories for the goodness of God (Rom. 1:18-22, 28). The beginning of true knowledge comes only from a fear of God (Prov. 1:7).

Evolutionists – without God’s word as a guide – are “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7). Evolutionary scientists will continue to devise and discard one theory after another, but the true facts of science  – without distortion – will always agree with God’s word.

Source: Dinosaurs Before Adam, Ambassador College, 1963.

Why Hasn't Science Discovered God?

hybrid-androgyne.deviantart.com

Until the later half of the nineteenth century, the intellectual community was dominated by religious thinking. In intellectual pursuits men were expected to espouse a belief in God. Alternate views were automatically viewed with suspicion. Science existed, but it was cloaked in a shroud of superstition.

Early in this century, however, the actors on the intellectual stage exchanged roles. God became a mere “extra.” Superstition was cast as the villain. Science emerged to replace religion in the leading role. In the final act many expected science to explain all mysteries, dissolve all superstition and leave nothing to the realm of the supernatural.

But will it? Is this its responsibility? Should we expect science to replace God and religion as significant forces in the intellectual world? Will all knowledge finally succumb to the defining scrutiny of empirical investigation? And will scientists and other educated men who today believe in God eventually cease to believe? Or is there more to the question of God and science than is commonly assumed?

A careful analysis is in order for anyone seeking an intelligent perspective of reality. Science is neither anti-God, nor does it disprove Him. There is no reason to be confused by the belief that God can or even should be done away with by science. Here is why.

What Is Science?

The English word “science” comes from the Latin scientia, which simply means “knowledge.” On the surface it would seem, then, that knowledge of God ought to be a scientific issue. Some religious groups even hold this idea as a basic doctrine of faith. They state that science is not really “true” science unless it includes God and a knowledge of things supernatural. Yet if one is really precise in his definitions, and wishes to avoid inaccurate logic in his quest for factual knowledge of God, this simple definition must be refined.

Science in its proper modern usage is the pursuit of only a limited type of knowledge. “At no time does science claim to be in possession of the whole truth; in fact, science is quite clear in insisting that it is never able to be in possession of the whole truth …” (Richard H. Bube, ed., The Encounter Between Christianity and Science [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968], p. 35). “Science gives us only a partial, even though ever expanding, picture of the universe. To assume that its descriptions cover the whole of reality is folly indeed!” (Ibid., p. 265.)

Science by definition is confined to establishing general truths by the means of empirical evidence available through the five senses. It originates exclusively in physical observation, experience or experimentation. Therefore, “Science is concerned only with the natural world. Unless a phenomenon can be described within the framework of space and time, it is not properly within the domain of science …

The human senses are the tools of science in studying the natural world. If you can’t see it, hear it, feel, taste, or smell it, then science can’t work with it …” (ibid., p. 18). “Its very nature is such that it cannot deal with unobservable phenomena …” (ibid., p. 265). “Science as such cannot either affirm or deny the truth of statements that lie beyond the limits of that which is empirically verifiable and observable” (ibid., p. 280).

In fact, had not scientists confined their investigations to repeatable, testable evidence — the realm of the physical — many of science’s greatest discoveries might still be covered by a cloak of irrational superstition.

One does, though, sometimes hear the term “science” used in less specific ways. Take the term “religious science,” for example. Here the term “science” really ought to be understood as merely meaning “knowledge” — in that religion is not within the scope of science in its exact sense. Therefore, it would seem that the term “religious knowledge” might be more appropriate when used in critical discussions.

“… We must always recognize the limitations of science. Its very nature is such that it cannot deal with unobservable phenomena, including those that are supernatural …” (ibid., p. 265). “Supernatural phenomena which are not thus observable [by use of the senses, etc.] are outside the scope of science” (ibid., p. 263).

Philosophy, Not Fact

Nevertheless, many do forget the distinction. In fact, much of the skepticism, agnosticism and atheism in the civilized world can no doubt be traced to a disregard of the implicit limits of science. In such a case, scientific methodology is universally applied to everything outside the laboratory. One ceases to deal with science, but enters the realm of philosophy, called empiricism or scientism. Such a concept is not scientific; it is merely the highly restrictive view that anything nonscientific is unreal or untrustworthy.

As the dictionary defines it, empiricism is “a theory that all knowledge originates in experience” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). I am sure that many thinking men would reject the validity of this philosophy. But in an age when science has done so many wonderful things for mankind, it is difficult to reject the idea that science does not hold the keys to all mysteries. But conclusive knowledge of God is patently a bigger issue than science alone. God is not antiscientific. He is not even unscientific. He is simply extra-scientific, or largely beyond the testability of empirical methods.

“An awareness of these limits can help us avoid many inappropriate controversies. For example, does the idea of God lend itself to scientific scrutiny? … If our hypothesis is correct, God would indeed exist everywhere … and we would never be able to devise a situation in which God is not present … But if our hypothesis is wrong, He would not exist and would therefore be absent from any test we could possibly make … Yet we would need such a situation for a controlled experiment. Right or wrong, our hypothesis is untestable … and science cannot legitimately say anything about Him. It should be carefully noted that this is a far cry from saying ‘science disproves God,’ or ‘scientists must be godless … ‘ Science commits you to nothing more … than adherence to the ground rules of proper scientific inquiry” (Paul B. Weisz, The Science of Biology, 4th ed. [New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1971], p. 8).

Thus we see that a scientist, when speaking as a scientist, should confine his comments to the limits of his discipline. Unless properly qualified, he should avoid philosophic extrapolations into fields which empirical techniques do not permit him to venture. To require this is not to criticize. It is a mere statement of definition. “The supernatural is not excluded from science because of a bias on the part of scientists; the supernatural is excluded by definition” (Bube, op. cit., p. 19).

Many great scientists, particularly of the last century, did also possess experience that qualified them to speak on topics other than science. Two notable examples are Isaac Newton, who had a well-developed love for poetry, and Samuel B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph and a recognized painter in his day. In fact, most educated men of that day felt an obligation to gain a broad-based educational experience before venturing into specialized fields. Like classical Greek scholars, they felt it poor intellectual wisdom to theorize in areas where they lacked a foundation of basic knowledge.

Perhaps it is unrealistic to attempt, as did nineteenth century scholars, competence in all fields of learning. The sheer mass of information available to a student today makes the task impractical. Yet the need to respect the value and existence of knowledge other than empirical knowledge is still obvious. Many have not, however, and have fallen into the quicksands of empiricism.

I have no objection to a scientist expressing an opinion. Anyone has that right. But a thinking person must object to the man’s reputation as a scientist being used as authority to express non-scientific opinions. Knowledge of science does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about God.

And yet it surprises me how many people trust anything that comes from a scientific authority without asking if it is scientific fact or mere extra-scientific, personal opinion wrapped in a technical-sounding package. Such is the problem today of many who have some education in the field of science and who otherwise want to know about God. They respect science, but they also feel that God might also make sense. But they have been lulled into an acceptance of the philosophy of empiricism by an educational system largely devoted to materialistic goals.

Science is very important to our modern world. To look down on such benefits would be foolish. But to forget the limits of science is even poorer thinking. Science is useful and productive, but it is not the final authority on knowledge. Much truth lies beyond the investigation of empirical observation and experiment. The existence of God, for example, lies within that realm.

But how does one come to grips with truth beyond science? In science, the facts are real and tangible. Beyond it, whatever truth might exist seems unworkable. This surely is the next logical question in the God/science controversy.

Vital Definitions

To properly understand how one can work with all truth, and not just the variety we see, smell or taste, the meaning of the word “truth” itself must be comprehended. In fact, three concepts commonly tossed about in discussions of God and science must be brought to sharp focus. They are: truth, proof and evidence.

Truth is defined as “that which conforms to fact or reality; that which is … has been, or must be.” Anything which intrinsically and absolutely exists is embodied in the term “truth.” As the dictionary states, “truth” is “that which is,” whether scientifically testable or not. Truth is truth even if no human minds perceive that it exists; and all truth, visible or not, is equally real.

Evidence is, as the dictionary defines it, “Clearness: an outward sign; indication ….” It is that which makes truth visible and clear to the human mind. The truth of electricity, for example, may not be clear and visible to a human mind until it can see, through the eye, the effect of the electricity on a physical object like a light bulb. That is evidence of electricity.

The real difference between scientific and supernatural truth lies not in the degree of validity of one truth over another, but in the inability of the human mind to see all truth with equal ease. We are physical beings, and our thinking mechanism receives its raw material only via the five physical senses. Therefore scientific truth is naturally seen. Supernatural evidence is just as real; but we simply do not have the senses to detect it automatically as we do physical fact.

Some truth, like many basic physical truths, can be so easily demonstrated that scientists call it scientific law. For others, the evidence is less available. Albert Einstein, for example, long sensed the truth of relativity before other scientists were able to provide empirical observational evidence.

Thus we see that man’s overall view of reality is naturally limited. Where the evidence is abundant, truth can be defined with considerable certainty. But in many cases it cannot. God is the supreme example. The truth of His existence clearly does not abound with physical evidence, at least not the irrefutable, objective type. Theoretically (and as the Bible does say), God’s handiwork as the Creator of the universe is physically visible. But as the long history of serious, sincere and conscientious scholars shows, physical evidence alone is inadequate. If one chooses to exclude from his thinking everything but empirical evidence, then he must intellectually recognize the well-established fact that there is no ladder by which a man can climb to a sure knowledge of God. Final proof must depend on the assistance we have received in God’s revelation.

Even if one finds this fact disappointing, revelation is a necessity to make the picture complete. It provides the basic dimension of certainty lacking in physical scientific evidence alone. Frankly, it is God’s responsibility to make His revelation both adequate and believable.

“But I Want Solid Proof!”

But of what value is revelation? Some say they can only trust something they can “prove” — like scientific evidence. And here we meet with a surprise. Revealed evidence can be proved exactly as scientific evidence can. There is no difference when one properly understands the real meaning of “proof.”

Most dictionaries have defined proof as, “The degree of cogency, arising from evidence, which convinces the mind of any truth or fact and produces belief.”

Proof is not absolute or intrinsic. It is entirely personal. It is in the “mind”; it “convinces”; it produces “belief.” And the key is “cogency.” Proof is the mental acceptance that something is sensible, reasonable, logical; in other words, cogent. Therefore it is completely subjective.

It is narrow-minded thinking to insist that proof to you “must” be proof to someone else. But it just can’t be. What may constitute “proof’ to one person may be woefully inadequate to another. Absolute proof simply does not exist. That is why science does not deal with absolute proof. It only seeks out and systematizes evidence that leads to an increasing level of probability.

But viewed as a personal matter, it is not difficult to realize why scientific evidence is no better at proving (producing a belief in) truth than is supernatural evidence. Whichever is the more cogent, logical, reasonable or sensible to an individual’s mind, provides the best “proof.” Some people accept meager evidence as solid proof, while others seem to have the capacity to remain unmoved in the presence of the very best evidence!

Some, as we have seen, resist the cogency of anything but physical, scientific evidence. But whether the evidence is empirical or not does not matter!

Cogency is the criterion, but for it to make sense, one must intelligently accept proof as a relative issue and reject science as the final authority in all knowledge. These are surely basic steps to philosophic stability.

Source: The Good News, January 1974

Scientism: Materialism On Steroids!

http://evolution.mightymag

Scientism is the belief that the sciences have no boundaries and will, in the end, be able to explain everything in the universe. It is an ideology unto itself.

The Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics defines scientism as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of natural science to be applied to all areas of investigation.”

Is hard science really the only way of understanding reality? If something can’t be “proved” through the scientific method, through observable and measurable evidence, is it then irrelevant? In general, scientism leaves little or no place for the imagination and rather than further human understanding, it limits it.

For example, the education system teaches children not to think, but to accept taught dogma. Any student that uses logic and solid “contrary” evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into quiet submission. This is a type of brainwashing, or conforming to the system. Individual thoughts or opinions are not allowed. This “team player” attitude, forcefully thrust upon students with massive peer pressure, is little else than a soft pedalled version of brainwashing techniques used by communist countries.

Society today is replete with children unable to think logically, scientifically and accurately. They are taught to doubt elements of purpose around them, and accept unscientific theories like evolution, or the result of life by pure chance. All of this defaults to atheism. It assumes incorrectly that what we believe, and the way we live, is always based on provable “facts,” which never include – gasp – faith.

Yet science itself has always had a speculative component, as we see with theories about quantum physics and the Big Bang and evolution. Arguing that any other idea counter to evolution is “nonsense” reflects blindness to the real insights offered by God through nature.  Agreed, God cannot be observed or measured by scientific instruments or, for that matter, scientifically proven to even exist. But the reality is that the workings of God can, indeed, be observed when measured against the Light of the Word of God.

Getting back to evolution, few today would argue that it is an incomplete theory. Those who will must explain how the concept of consciousness has engendered in the form of its highest evolutionary accomplishment – mankind. At what point in the evolutionary tree did it start? And what prompted the process? It’s no good to merely talk about it – prove it, as creationists are consistently told.  If you can’t prove when man became self aware and started looking back and observing himself, then all lines of reasoning become pantheistic, which is a religious belief system of its own when boiled down to the lowest common denominator. It is, as the atheist Richard Dawkins describes, “materialism on steroids.” Here is a great link to disproving the theory of evolution through its many problems, errors and lies.

“So, armed with only the observations of current and historical geologic processes and other empirical data, and assuming natural history has been a continuum across billions of years, the present secular paradigms of geological and evolutionary theory are about the best belief system that the educated mind of carnal mankind could be expected to conceive and accept from the available physical evidence. Without the input of Biblical Authority, current theories are, in reality, incomplete. And many questions and mysteries remain unresolved, especially in relation to the origins of mankind.”  Scienceblog.com

From The Liberal Mindset: Methane Madness

From: Trumpet.com

March 2, 2009, by Ron Fraser

http://www.freefoto.com/preview/01-16-5?ffid=01-16-5

Unbelievable! Where will the liberal set lead us next?

First it was methane-producing cows that were endangering the planet through their gaseous contributions to “global warming.” Now, believe it or not, it’s belching lambs! What next—burping bandicoots?

Reporting from Palmerston North in New Zealand, Patrick Barta wrote in a Wall Street Journal front-page report, “On a typical day, researchers in this college town coax hungry sheep into metal carts. They wheel the fluffy beasts into sealed chambers and feed them grass, then wait for them to burp.

“The exercise is part of a global effort to keep sheep, deer, cows and other livestock from belching methane when they eat and regurgitate grass” (February 26).

And the reason for this marvel of scientific experimentation? “Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and researchers now believe livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change, responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than cars are, according to the United Nations.”

Can you really believe this? Or do you think according to the common sense of many a farmer, as the Journal muses, that “the problem of sheep burps is so much hot air”?

Believe it or not, the greenies are pushing for a “burp tax” on all bovines, and “some activists are urging consumers to stop buying meat and thus slow climate change” (ibid.).

If this does not reveal a streak of madness prevalent in the liberal mind, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. Unbelievably, these folk, who on the one hand wave placards touting “animal rights,” ostensibly despairing of the slaughter of animals for human consumption, on the other try to stop the normal functioning of a live animal via experiments where “they have even tried feeding the animals chloroform, which can stymie the production of gas if it doesn’t kill the animal” (ibid.).

What reveals the mentally aberrant liberal agenda behind all this is the UN’s attachment to the hilarious claim that livestock bear a responsibility for the warming of the planet.

Come on!

Any decent researcher worth his salt knows that the UN handed its collective mind over to liberal madness decades ago. What’s really behind the UN anti-animal farming agenda is the liberal push to eliminate animal husbandry from the planet and convert us all into a feminist, politically correct, multicultural, neuter-gender conglomerate of godless, evolutionist herb-eating vegetarians!

The global warming push has even bred a new profession, “livestock emissions research,” which one scientist admits would be but a fringe science if it was not for “all the interest in climate change” (ibid.). In other words, it will quickly fade away if the fashion changes back to “global cooling” as it did some 30 years ago!

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous and defies logic, at least the logic of a two-feet-planted-squarely-on-the-ground realist!

What makes this all the more ludicrous is that, increasingly, the global warmists are finding themselves out on a limb as more and more scientists declare their hand as viewing climate change being founded on plain bad science! One of the latest reports comes from a U.S. Environment and Public Works full committee hearing last Wednesday. Marc Morano reports that during the hearing, titled “Update on the Latest Global Warming Science,” “Award-winning Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears ‘mistaken’ and noted that the Earth was currently in a ‘CO2 famine now.’ Happer … has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers …. Happer was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views” (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, February 25).

Veteran psychiatrist Dr. Lyle Rossiter opines that the mindset behind much of liberal thinking is very like a kind of psychological disorder. “A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity—as liberals do.” Of the few remaining political realists, he states, “[A] legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state—as liberals do” (The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness).

Yet such a crazy approach is behind the global-warmist-anti-bovine-burping element within society that has been given carte blanche by our liberal mass media to brainwash us into caving in to such mad rules as those designed to limit our “carbon footprint,” or be taxed if we don’t.

Dr. Rossiter declares that “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

Well, what more could we expect than that which we got in the U.S., the UK, Australia and New Zealand as the political pendulum swung left? Truly it is all so pathetic, but in reality it is all so PROPHETIC! After all, the Eternal God declared millennia ago that if His people rebelled against Him, as their civilization teetered on the brink, it would be in a time when those who ruled over us would have the mentality of feminized babes, which would ultimately lead many to just plain madness (Isaiah 3:4; Deuteronomy 28:28).