When everyone in the room is told they should expect the High Chieftain of Xerplosia, and a man dressed in stunning robes walks in, they all will immediately assume he is the man. Will any doubt he is and if they do will they be allowed to voice the opinion? Such group-think, brain-washing, I fear, has affected our scientific community as a whole. Watching “No Intelligence Allowed” is a real entry-level eye opener to how this works in Science currently. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
When Scientists cannot get jobs if they believe anything other then evolution, if they even attempt to suggest a different interpretation of the evidence they lose their jobs, then how can one say anything different than the conclusions are fixed?
To me it is self evident that the scientific community as a whole is extremely flawed. One only has to consider their response to Creationism let alone ID (Intelligent Design) or any other non-evolutionary thinking. Even Theist Evolution is under attack and they are the most “catering” to Evolutionists, see Sam Harris’s article http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins
A healthy Scientific community wouldn’t demonize anything that wasn’t main stream (evolution), in fact they would welcome any difference in opinion as every challenge and every question only helps better find the “truth”. Science depends on challenges, questioning, and thinking outside the box, but our current Scientific Community is as inbred as any extreme resist joke could make up. Instead of seeking the truth, the Scientific community is more one of defending their main hypothesis (evolution) at all costs. To me, I think the Scientific community looks more like the Catholic Church in Copernicus’s day, than Copernicus – an interesting thought considering that Evolutionists hate the idea of being called a “religion”.
So if the main stream (by-which I mean all the money and grants lie) Science is really an inbred group of Evolutionary Apologists, why is anyone trusting what they say let alone trying to cater to them and claim we Christians need to accept their “Science” as “Biblical“fact and move on (looking at you Theistic Evolutionists). The TE’ers want us to believe that Evolution is fact, “don’t fight it, just make Scripture fit it and lets all move on”, when the truth, well its not even close, isn’t down that path.
Of course I am not suggesting that everything Evolutionary Scientists believe is wrong, just the over all Evolutionary philosophy they have biased into all their “science”. They are the people who walk into a room seeking to prove that the wife was murdered by her husband and not wanting to consider any other option, sure they see some “real” evidence, and rightly draw conclusions in line with the truth “she was stabbed by a large knife” and “this knife obviously stabbed her”, but they are unwilling to let the evidence lead them anywhere else than “the husband had to have done it”.
When a Scientist looks at Nature and is told (implicitly or explicitly) to find Evolutionary evidence and anything else will cost them their career, what do you think they will find? Or what about the Scientists who really do believe this Evolutionary stuff, and want to find it, and are unwilling to find anything else? They say that “Creationism” is debunked solely because the Creationist believes in God, and that starting bias rules them out as “viable” scientists, yet their science (Evolution) is biased by their anti-God beliefs and adherence to Evolution, so why are they not being called on it (being biased)?
The issue isn’t what beliefs do you hold, but do your beliefs taint or negatively corrupt your science or do they aid it (interestingly enough that Christianity is the reason Science exists as it does because of its influence in culture and interest in God’s creation, a view not really held prior to Christianity)? Do you let your scientific conclusions come from the Science or do you look for the conclusions you like in the Science? I fear too many Scientists (on all sides for that matter) go looking to see if Scientific evidence will fit their prior convictions: “oh look evolution can make sense of this if you think about it this way” and so forth.
Here is my big point. Evolution is a philosophy first about how the universe works. It is a theory that can explain some of the evidence found in nature through Science. It makes sense of some data. It however isn’t the only theory (nor the best in my opinion), and it doesn’t make sense of all the data (no theory does except appealing to God).
Scientific evidence doesn’t “demand” evolution, as some evidence can only be explained by Evolution and no competing evidence can explain it. This isn’t to mention the fact that much of this “evidence” is very sketchy at best. Looking at a single bone and crafting a whole creature from it, isn’t very comforting Science, neither is looking at scratching in a rock of a fossil and claiming it is a “transitionary fossil” because it’s a fish with hands when there are numerous explanations of why it appears so, and none involve it having to be a “transitionary form” http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record . But Scientists claim it is a transitionary form because they need them for their “theory” to work, and there really is so little evidence of them (transitional forms), anything that slightly looks like one is immediately trumpeted as the “missing” link (although most are found to be false alarms or even fabricated lies).
Like I often say. Why is the only “scientific” accepted explanation of Neanderthals, Apes, and Humans: that they are all in the same evolutionary chain, when another really good (better dare I say) explanation is that they look similar because they are all created by the same God. One doesn’t look at an iPhone and an iPad, and an iMac and assume they are evolved from each other because they share so many similarities, but they look similar because the same design team created them in the same company.
Obviously the Apple products are not evidence of Evolution because everyone knows who created them and therefore they look at them through different eyes. But when our Scientists look at Apes, Humans, and Neanderthals they will not accept any “Creator” theories, therefore they can only assume they “evolved” from the same “parent” creature. So something that would be foolish to do in our current society, assume that similar products (created things) were evidence of Evolution, isn’t foolish to do in our current Scientific world, where design and similarity must exist due to no outside intelligence, purpose, or divine fiat. Of course TE’ers paint a different picture (slightly) but they still want to assume all the evidence done by the biased evolutionists is good science, just wrongly interpreted.
No doubt there is good science in there, but they are not just differing on the interpretation, rather they are agreeing on it and only disagreeing on the meaning behind the interpretation. Evolutionists say that everything evolved from a single organism, with no outside intelligence, purpose, or reason driving it. While TE’ers says everything evolved from a single organism, with the help of outside intelligence, purpose, and a reason. It seems to me that the views are very similar in every respect but TE’ers just add God (which I think most Evolutionists find unnecessary and disturbing see Sam Harris).
Just as I think Evolution is flawed because it seeks to explain many things in what Greg Koukl calls adding the Leprechaun, they take the simple explanation and add an additional step that is unnecessary, in their case Evolution, and TE’ers just add God to Evolution. The Leprechaun point is simply this: the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence is the true one. If you ask me how to boil watter and I told you: put water in a pan, heat on a fire to 212 degrees F. and then add a Leprechaun and your water will boil, you would laugh because obviously I didn’t need to add the Leprechaun to boil water, it would boil on its own.
I am sure Evolutionists think Creationists are just adding a “Leprechaun” when they invoke God, but the simple response is “God” is to Nature, what “Heat” is to the water. The water wouldn’t boil without heat, so Nature wouldn’t run without God. He isn’t an additional and unnecessary step, He is the first and primary step.
TE’ers are afraid that Christians are driving people away from the faith because they are fighting against Evolutionists, so they try to get Christians not to fight Evolutionists by telling them Evolution is “good” Science and the “Truth” of reality and Creation. The problem is: Evolution isn’t Science; it is a Philosophy and worldview by which Science is interpreted, just as Creationism is a Philosophy and worldview by which Science is interpreted. Therefore Evolution is at odds with Christianity not on Scientific grounds, but on worldview grounds, and thusly should be attacked there.
Science cannot prove God’s existence either way, but it sure can either demonstrate His fingerprints or not. Either we see evidence of a Designer in Nature or we simply do not. If we see evidence of a Designer, wouldn’t trying to figure out who He is be a better use of our time then fighting over details of how we think things happened thousands or millions of year ago, when in reality we really cannot be that sure our conclusions haven’t missed some important missing fact that had escaped our formula or thinking?