How do you lead people to conclude that there’s only one truth, without showing them any real evidence to support it? Answer: you keep them from all dissenting alternatives…

blindfold

I was listening to a BBC radio discussion on the subject of parasitism recently (1), the panel being a gathering of very learned and highly credentialed evolutionary scientists. One of the comments which stood out to me was from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College, London. In the course of the discussion host Melvyn Bragg asked the Prof:

So you’re definitely saying that sometimes parasites can have a positive and good effect?

The answer:

Well the trouble is that words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in biology-it turns into “theology” then.

In Nick Fisher-ese, the answer was, Hey, lay off of that filthy religious language, and stay well away from that “God” thing: we’re talking “science” now, and the two things  are and must remain separate…

We can sum this up in one word: bias. Or we could call it “intentional ignorance”. Or we could call it the language of propaganda.

I went to school: I was taught the state-sponsored view of our origins. I’ve seen all those glossy, realistic TV specials promoting and pushing the pill of evolution ex-nihilo down our throats with the sugar of awesome special effects and incredible extinct animals . But I’ve also been fortunate and blessed enough to see the other side, and in my view, God is the master-scientist. No God-no science. In fact, no God, no universe. Great scientists of the past such as Isaac Newton had no mind to censor or hide their beliefs, and no motive to do so.

Don’t forget that according to honest evolutionary philosophy you are just another animal, no more important in the universe than a tape-worm, a tadpole, a tomato, a tree or a tic.

In science-if we really want to see science and evolution as being synonymous-there’s no such thing as “good” or “bad” in any absolute sense. Remember, according to the learned Prof quoted above, words like “positive” and “good” don’t really belong in science. At least he’s being consistent with his beliefs. So all this whining about who colluded with who and who gassed who and who shot who is superfluous and unnecessary, since there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” but only what we decide is good or bad at any given time in history. Hitler and Stalin were no more “wrong” than we are. Death is not a “bad” thing, since it weeds out the weak.

FISH

Picture Copyright © by Nick Fisher

We’re led to believe that scientists have disproved the existence of God-which is actually impossible-and instead they’ve scientifically shown that everything came into existence by itself and evolved all on its own. The truth is that scientists, including those who may quietly be questioning the politically correct view of origins and evolution (and there are some) are all but forbidden to even suggest the possibility that there could be the remotest chance that there may just be something to that “God” thing, for fear of loss of employment, of tenure, of recognition, or of funding.

Stephen Meyer, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, with a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, writes about a principle of evolutionary science in his book, “Darwin’s Doubt” (2). “Methodological naturalism”, aka “methodological materialism” is a presumed rule of science, he says. It asserts that to qualify as scientific, a theory must explain phenomena and events in nature…by reference to strictly material causes only:

“According to this principle, scientists may not invoke the activity of a mind or, as one philosopher of science puts it, any “creative intelligence”.

Evolutionary science intentionally dismisses the remotest suggestion of Creation and possibility of intelligent design. No researcher or professor who wants to keep his job or his funding can factor any hint of divinity or design into his work or his pronouncements. The most polite designation by evolutionists for these two views of science and anything like them, held by many fine scientists and scientifically trained individuals in the Creation and Intelligent Design movements, is that they are “unscientific”.

Evolutionists, who hold the political and legal upper hand in all areas of education and the media, intentionally bar the slightest hint of any evidence, opinion, interpretation or line of inquiry which points towards a designer or a creator. In other words, you-and your children, with the help of your tax money, are purposely kept from considering any alternative interpretation of science to the politically correct one which may lead you to conclude that there is a Designer, unless it’s a controlled exposure designed (!) to ridicule and belittle.

Meyer relates a now famous (or infamous) quote by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, laying out his own version of the “ban God” rule:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

Over nineteen hundred years ago the apostle Peter described this blinkered attitude by saying that people are “willingly ignorant” (KJV): they “deliberately overlook” (ESV) the facts of creation…and the judgment to come (2 Peter 3:5-7).

Thanks for reading. This post is an edited version of one I wrote last year.

NOTES

1: BBC Radio 4 “In Our Time”: “Parasitism”-broadcast January 26th 2017.

2: DARWIN’S DOUBT: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. See also the follow-up, “Debating Darwin’s Doubt” in which Meyer answers his critics.

 

Advertisements