A few days ago I posted a link to a book I had recently published entitled Betting on Jesus. I submitted the post on Reddit’s Christianity sub-group in hopes of stimulating a vigorous discussion on some of the issues I talk about in the book. By clicking on the link I posted you are taken directly to the book’s Amazon page and allowed to read a good portion of the book in their “Look Inside” option for free, and one of those Reddit members had indeed done just that.
Well, it would be an understatement to say that my mission was accomplished. I did indeed stimulate a vigorous discussion – specifically on the matter of evolution. One of those I engaged with challenged an assertion I made in the opening chapter – that assertion being that the Theory of Evolution and Christianity were mutually exclusive. He wrote in his first post that billions of Christians would disagree with me on my point, and he went on to tell me that the Theory of Evolution was no longer a theory – rather, it was now considered a scientific fact.
My initial response was to challenge him on his unsupported claim that billions of Christians believed that evolution was no longer considered theory. He relented on that point when I established that there are only about 2.2 billion Christians in the world today so the odds of “billions of Christians” believing evolution is a fact – his words – would constitute a very bombastic embellishment of the truth.
I claim no prophetic divination, but I almost immediately determined that I wasn’t exchanging comments with the average Christian – rather, I had to be talking to a scientist. So I simply asked him if he was in fact a scientist to which he responded that he was, and in fact, he was a biologist. The stage was set for a very lively discussion that went on into the early morning, and gathering steam as another Reddit member joined the fray – another scientist – who quickly aligned with my biologist adversary. It was now two against one, but I was prepared for battle. I had done my homework after all as I had researched and written an entire chapter on the matter of scientific bias.
I made note of the fact that the scientific community had inexplicably developed what now deceased Lynn Margulis – a biologist and evolutionary theorist – described as a “religious ferocity” in the rhetoric evolutionists use to defend what she referred to as a “popular half-truth.” I also made note of the fact that Professors Jerry Fodor and Massimo Palmarini – both avowed atheists, and both scientists – had pushed back on the matter of evolution in their 2010 book – “What Darwin Got Wrong.”
And, I mentioned others in the scientific community that soundly refuted the idea that The Theory of Evolution was no longer considered theory. Well, as it turns out, both of these scientists I was debating with on Reddit exemplified the very thing that most concerns me – the thing Lynn Margulis called a “religious ferocity.” These two scientists were defending what Margulis called a popular “half-truth” with derogatory platitudes, and almost no scientific explanation to rebut my own scientific assertions.
What kept on surfacing in my mind was the famous phrase found in Shakespeare’s Hamlet – “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Today that phrase has become a figure of speech indicating that a person is insincere. Here’s what Jerry Fodor had to say about the disingenuous defense of evolution by those who possess that “religious ferocity” that Margulis spoke of:
We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.
What I find most interesting in these comments is the implication by Fodor that intelligent creation is not a myth that demands a disingenuous defense – rather, it is evolution that is the myth that demands a disingenuous defense.
Now, there are some very valid scientific facts that do argue against evolution. One is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and how entropy leads to less systemic order, not more. In other words, mutations don’t produce – in a very gradual way – a more sophisticated specimen, rather the opposite is true. Theoretical physicist Fred Hoyle made that point in his 1983 book – The Intelligent Universe. Here is what he said:
“Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance, as indeed common sense suggests they must do.”
That, however, is not my point in this essay. I am more interested in proving that there is a legitimate and contrived bias within the scientific community today than I am in disproving the Theory of Evolution. And we see that bias being identified by Hoyle in these words:
“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.”
Again, we have the “wrath of scientific opinion” coming up in Hoyle’s comments. There can be no doubt, when considering these comments, that those who reside in the high places within the Halls of Academia do indeed excommunicate their heretics. As one who holds objectivity in high regard, I resent the idea that anyone’s voice would be silenced. That, after all, is not the way to proceed if one is truly a scientist, as scientists should, at all times, be interested in discerning truth, not defending dogmatic beliefs. It is OK after all to get it wrong on occasion, and science has indeed gotten it wrong a lot.
In a paper entitled “Guiding Principles for Scientific Inquiry,” the author sets forth the following approach:
- Pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically.
- Link research to relevant theory.
- Use methods that permit direct investigation of the question.
- Provide a coherent and explicit chain of reasoning.
- Replicate and generalize across studies.
- Disclose research to encourage professional scrutiny and critique.
It is number 6 that matters here – “encourage professional scrutiny and critique.” And yet, according to Margulis, Fodor, and Hoyle that is simply not the way it works today. No scrutiny or critique is allowed. Jerry Fodor uses these words to explain the prevailing mindset of those in the field of science today:
“Neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.”
Now, I am going to make a huge leap and suggest there is ample scientific validation for the theory that is left if we reject evolution. That theory – as self-proclaimed atheist Fred Hoyle states – is “intelligent design.” And, to support my assertion that science does indeed validate “intelligent design” we can turn to Quantum Mechanics and the study of really small things – that is subatomic particles (quarks and photons) that are at the base of the atom, that are the building blocks of the atom.
Pay attention as this is the clincher in my mind. Here is what Max Planck had to say on the matter of matter – pun intended:
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
So, we hear Max Planck, the scientist who is credited with introducing us to Quantum Mechanics, telling us that an “intelligent mind” is what holds the physical world in place – a mind that is the “matrix of all matter.” Now, going back to my discussion on Reddit – when I began to introduce Quantum Mechanics into the discussion my scientist friends first asserted that they knew nothing of the subject, but still knew as much as I did. As it turned out, these science guys were wrong again as I did know a little about the subject. What I knew was that there is both energy and momentum at the photon/quark level, but not physical matter as such.
I don’t hold these guys at fault mind you. They are the product of a system that has succeeded in stealing the minds of our children through a very methodical approach of indoctrinating students into a belief system that is not grounded in real science, but rather is intended to reshape the thinking of our society as a whole.
And, for my money, the purpose behind this indoctrination process has nothing to do with elevating knowledge – rather it has everything to do with discrediting God. And, what is most ironic is the fact that the real beliefs of those truly great scientists of yesteryear – those like Einstein, Planck, James Jeans, Neils Bohr, and even Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin – held the belief that there was indeed something God like in the mysteries of the universe.
Here is what Thomas Huxley – an avid supporter of Darwin, and the man who coined the word agnostic had to say:
When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. . .
In summary, what bothers me the most is the fact that the scientific community has been systematically taken apart to the point where our young people of today have been driven away from Christianity. Certainly it is men who are at the heart of this shift, but I think it is also safe to conclude that these men are those in power, those who can use their money to influence societies in ways most of us have a hard time fathoming.
If we are to recapture the souls of our youth we must understand the agenda of these men. Lest you doubt the power they wield, take the time to consider the points I have made in this short essay. Evolution makes no sense, and yet it is being promulgated as fact. If evolution were true, ask yourself why man – who has been on this earth for 200,000 years according to science – suddenly began to evolve at such a rapid rate starting about 6,000 years ago. For 194,000 years – if science is accurate – man’s ability to create lay dormant. And then, 6,000 years ago, man’s creative juices began to boil over as he went from inventing the wheel to walking on the moon in a very short window of time in relative terms.
Is it just coincidence that the Bible tells us God created man roughly 6,000 years ago? And, is it also just coincidence that even science tells us that the first evidence of civilized man dates back roughly 6,000 years. If evolution were a fact as my Reddit adversaries claimed, how is it that evolution suddenly took on an exponential increase in the rate of change at the same time that the Bible tells us God created man?
They didn’t have an answer to those questions, but I do. Man didn’t evolve – God created man. I am willing to change that view by the way, but only on the basis of empirical evidence, and so far science hasn’t met that standard; and to the contrary, in my reasoned opinion, science has done the opposite, however unintentionally, in that they have done a lot more to validate the existence of God than they have done to invalidate His existence.