How they change the rules!


I have identified myself as a Contrarian. The best way to describe that is with the age-old adage of the 12 oz glass that has 6 oz of fluid in it. The optimist believes it is half full, the pessimist believes it is half empty. I look at it and see it differently. I believe that the glass is twice the size it needs to be. All three statements are correct, but two are based upon personal opinion and preconceived prejudices. Only one- mine- is based on the available facts.

I had one person respond to that with the following: “The glass has the amount of liquid in it that was put into it. That is the correct answer.” This is a typical response from progressives and liberals. They always have the correct answer and everyone else is wrong. And to get to their answer you have to assume something not supported by the facts presented. This person is assuming that there was someone who made a conscious decision to pour JUST a half a glass of liquid. That is possible but once assumed then you open it up to many other assumptions. Maybe it was full and somebody put a straw in it and drank half of it. Maybe it was full and half of it has evaporated. Maybe it is under a sink and that it is filling up drop by drop. There is no end of the possibilities. So again, I say mine is the only correct statement based strictly upon the presented facts.

So the prog/libs say things like: ‘Creationism isn’t science’ and ‘They don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately ignore them.’ They will generally give two criteria which they feel are universal to all definitions of science. They will insist that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither.

So let’s see what they are talking about. 1) Correctibility – acknowledgement that what we currently think can be changed by future discoveries. It is a common caricature of creationism to paint it as a fixed, immovable set of ideas that leaves no room for change or discussion, as opposed to ‘real’ science which is vibrantly alive with constantly changing ideas and concepts refined by new evidence. It is true that there is a ‘bottom line’ in the creationist framework belief in the literal truth of Genesis. However, there is a ‘bottom line’ for evolutionary theorists too just as fixed and immovable, it is a belief that natural processes and causes must have been sufficient to build planets and people from particles.

There are indeed many controversies about the mechanism of this self-transformation. Opinions shift and scientists are often willing to correct and abandon their ideas about how evolution happened. But they are not prepared to abandon the bottom line, the belief that some sort of evolution did occur. To put it another way, the how of evolution is negotiable, but not the whether.

Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as ‘science’ vs. ‘faith’. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. In fact, evolutionists and creationists have the exact same scientific facts to examine. There isn’t a scientific observation that a creationist would disagree with an evolutionist about. Creationists disagree with evolutionists conclusions because we do not agree with their starting presuppositions.

2) Nature- Find out how the natural world works by studying the natural world itself.

Creationist scientists are of course equally committed to this statement, since you will notice it refers to ‘how the world works’, not how it came to be. The evolution/creation question is not about how the world works. Given that the world works in the way it does, this says nothing about whether it originated in the same way.

Evillutionists keep telling us over and over that one of the rules of scientific investigation into the past is that it must assume that present-day processes have been the cause of building all things into their present state from very simple beginnings.

The scientific endeavor has a lot to do with a search for truth. Unless our study of ‘how the world works’ is trying to get us even closer to something that is objectively true, is trying to bring our limited understanding of the world closer to what the world is really like, what is the point of doing science at all? In the same way, when we attempt to study origins scientifically, surely we are trying to get as close as possible to the details of what really happened (keeping in mind that the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins because they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past).

Evillutionists believe the only processes it is proper to bring into a scientific discussion of origins are those we can study today. They do not consider that they are making an a priori exclusion of a possibly true explanation, based on a belief (non-provable, metaphysical, religious) that the way the world works is the way it originated. This is a starting belief-something adopted as a ‘rule’ before the evidence is considered. The only thing science is allowed to do, according to these new rules, is to consider which evolutionary models are better than others are.

How did such a new rule come about? Eastern thought sees the universe as a great mind so there is no reason to think that nature may not change its mind! Science began as a study of how the present world works, so it was necessary to exclude the supernatural or the miraculous. To scientifically study the way the present world works, it has to be assumed that the world behaves in a predictable way, so that what goes down one day will not, capriciously and unpredictably, go up the next. To the Christian, this was and is evidence of God’s working in a uniform, trustworthy and normative way through natural causes.

However, there is no logical reason to extend this to a study of origins. The confusion arises in part because of a failure to understand that the field of origins is a study trying to work out what has happened, whereas the context in which science arose was a study of how things are happening. Whether things were made originally by supernatural creation or not does not in the slightest bear upon the validity of the scientific method for a study of how the world works in the present, as a moment’s thought will show.

The scientific rules which the majority apply to origins research today thus demand adherence to a statement of belief no less rigid than that of any creationist organization. This is the belief that the world arose by non-miraculous processes. Those who prefer theism would say that it arose by a god working through process, only within the framework of natural law. Such a god inevitably becomes, in the most common thinking in theological circles today, bound by the laws of nature and essentially indistinguishable from the Hindu concept of an impersonal god-force which is, in turn, essentially indistinguishable from nature itself. This needs to be remembered when considering statements made by high-profile theistic evolutionists about God and science.

The above ‘rule’, which they insist on in their definition of science, certainly does not exclude a god. But it most definitely excludes the transcendent Creator God of the Bible, and the possibility of Genesis creation of a fully functional cosmos. Notice that it is not the facts which exclude this, but the rules.

It is clear that a religious dogma has been forced upon science, one which allows only evolutionary (naturalistic self-transformation) models to be discussed in scientific circles. Note that ‘religion’ does not necessarily include a god — it is a world-and-life view, held with ardour and faith, incorporating beliefs which cannot be directly and conclusively tested or disproved. The atheist’s conviction that there is no God obviously qualifies as a religious belief system.

To see scientists state openly that creation may not be considered, even if true, is a sad indictment on the departure of science from its intuitively perceived mandate as a search for truth and reality. It makes nonsense of the widely held belief that science is philosophically ‘neutral’ in such matters. It also seems a powerful confirmation of the Bible’s statements that unregenerate men do not like to retain God in their knowledge, and prefer to worship the created things rather than the Creator.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.