|
Prophets or
Evolution - An LDS Perspective Chapter 15 The Five
Pillars of Evolution "But after [the theory of
evolution] has been changed a hundred times and it is still falsified, at some
point someone ought to throw in the towel." Luther D. Suderland, The Five Pillars of the
Theory of Evolution There are
five main pillars holding up the claim of orthodox science that the theory of
evolution is a "proven scientific fact." None
of them have anything to do with science or truth. This is because there is no truth in the
theory of evolution, thus they cannot use truth as a pillar to hold up the
theory of evolution. First,
evolution is considered a "fact" because God is excluded from any
discussion of science. Science has eliminated
their competition by using clever definitions of the term "science." And they have used the courts to keep
creation science and intelligent design out of the classrooms. The
scientific establishment has many very wealthy "friends" who think nothing of dropping millions of dollars into a court trial to make
sure creation science is not taught in the classrooms. But the
scientific establishment does not just ignore creation science, it attacks
creation science: "The arguments of creationists
are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. [A belief in] special creation or
supernatural intervention [by God] is not subjectable
to meaningful [scientific] tests, which require predicting plausible results
and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of 'special creation' reverse
the scientific process. The explanation
is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular
conclusion by whatever means possible." Science and Creationism, page 8 Knowing
that there is not one shred of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution,
try to count how many double-standards there are in the above quote. Second,
evolution is a "fact" because the theory of evolution keeps changing
to fit the data. The theory of evolution
is a "moving target" which adapts to every new scientific discovery. The theory of evolution is evolving. Third, is
the control of information received by the general public. Evolution is a "fact" because
science controls what information the general public hears. The general public is carefully deceived into
believing the theory of evolution has scientific evidence behind it. Fourth, the
theory of evolution is a "fact" because pro-evolution articles (i.e.
no mention of God) are the only articles allowed to be published in
"scientific" journals. Discoveries
and evidence which challenge or disprove the theory of evolution are
blacklisted and/or ridiculed. Science
closely monitors their journals and (usually) only admits into publication
scientific discoveries which support the theory, assume the theory is true or do
not seriously challenge the overall claims of the
theory of evolution. But never is a
favorable mention of God allowed. Fifth, it
is critical that the research and claims of the creationists (i.e. creation
scientists) are totally and absolutely suppressed. The public must never hear from a real
creation scientist. The public must
never hear their evidence and reasoning.
In this way the scientific establishment can portray to the general
public that creation scientists are a bunch of goons. That is why the UCTV series was so rare
because real creation scientists were allowed to speak on television!! These are
the five pillars which "hold up" the theory of evolution. Note
that "truth" or a "quest for truth" are not one of the
pillars!! The Pattern Did you
notice a pattern? All five of these
items have to do with the manipulation of information, and have absolutely
nothing to do with scientific evidence or truth. Item number
one above, excluding God, means they use their power in the media and schools
to prevent any student from hearing the evidence that God created anything. Item number
two above, the moving target, refers to modifying the information given to the
general public every time there is a new discovery in paleontology, biology,
genetics, etc. Item number
three above, is the brainwashing of the general public with weak, misleading,
fraudulent and simply absurd "evidence" that the theory of evolution
is somehow scientific. Item number
four is the control of "scientific journals." Only "scientific" (i.e. no mention
of God is allowed) information is allowed in "scientific" journals. Item number
five above is the complete and absolute blacklisting of the evidence of
creation scientists. The
scientific establishment is like the Big Bully in the 4th grade class taking
the candy away from the first and second graders every day. The scientific establishment, the Big Bully
in the media and in education, keeps taking new discoveries and giving the new
discoveries to their pet naturalistic theory (i.e. the theory of evolution). The theory
of evolution is looking at the rear-view mirror as it drives down the
highway. When it sees something in the
rear-view mirror that it likes, it then bullies its way into taking ownership
of the new discovery and people think evolution was looking out the front
window. But this is
not good science, this is bad science. Either the
original theory was true or it was false.
It is now known that the original theory of evolution was false. But the theory keeps being revived by being
constantly modified and by putting all new discoveries into its bottomless
empty box. The fact
that orthodox science is "naturalistic" not only drives their
philosophy; but it also drives their scientific ethics, or the lack
thereof. Naturalism is driving their
insatiable drive to keep the theory of evolution alive, no matter what the
scientific evidence and no matter what lack of integrity which is needed to
keep it alive. The fact is
that there is not one shred of scientific evidence, either by a study of nature
or by lab experiments, that human DNA, or the DNA of any other animal or plant,
could have been the result of accidental mutations of DNA. What scientific evidence there is is directly opposed to the theory of evolution. Their
"evidence" is based on vivid imaginations, and an insatiable desire
for "naturalism," not by any quest for science truth. These five
pillars are why the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. They control the information the general
public and most students hear. Here is an example
of how the theory of evolution is a moving target. For years the scientific establishment preached
that only 2.5% of human DNA was necessary for life. They used this as an excuse to claim that God
did not exist, because certainly God would not have created DNA which was 97.5%
worthless. However, as
scientists found out more and more about DNA, suddenly science changed their
song and dance and suddenly quit mentioning this argument. The reason is that science now knows that over
50% of DNA is necessary for life, and many scientists suspect the real number
is close to 100%. Another
"evidence" for the theory of evolution which resulted from thinking
only 2.5% of human DNA was useful, was that "old DNA" from
"ancestor species" (i.e. species, either living or extinct, from
which humans evolved according to the theory of evolution) had not been purged
from the DNA of humans. Thus, some or
most of the 97.5% of worthless DNA was considered to be left over "junk
DNA" from evolution (i.e. from ancestor species). This was a major "evidence" for the
theory of evolution. Not any
more. Now that scientists cannot prove
that a single part of human DNA is worthless, suddenly they quit talking about
left over genes from the ancestor species of humans. Yet, the
virtually perfect human DNA, and the massive complexity of human DNA, somehow
is twisted into a "proof" for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is nothing but a
chameleon. When
geneticists make the final determination as to what percentage of human DNA is
necessary for life, and it will be close to 100%, this conclusion will be put
into the box of evolution without a single shred of scientific evidence to
support it and without a single comment about their "old" theories!! An
unfalsifiable theory should not be part of "science," it should be
part of religion. "Science"
should only deal with falsifiable theories which do not constantly change. Again, we see an exception for Darwinism
because it is the best "naturalistic" theory they have. And science will always have a
"naturalistic" explanation for everything. The Obvious Question Let us
assume, for a moment, that God did
create the Universe and all living things?
If that were the case, should
this fact be omitted from science classes? In other
words, should "science" be a quest for truth or should it be a quest
for naturalism? Ponder that
ethics question for a couple of minutes before reading on. According
to the NAS booklet, the answer is that any mention of God should be omitted -
no matter what. Anything that mentions
God is not science and should not be taught in science classes, even if God did create the Universe and
everything in it. Thus, "science" is not
looking for absolute truth; science is looking for theories to explain things
as long as the theories exclude any mention of God. Science has
a huge hole in it - the lack of interest in truth. Most people
think that "science" is a quest for "absolute truth." Not according to the NAS definition of
"science." Nowhere in their
definitions is there any mention of absolute truth (which would of necessity,
should they be truthful about their quest for absolute truth, include a
consideration of God). The NAS
clearly states that "science" is limited to what
"scientists" are capable of doing in their labs. Here is
another quote from this booklet: "Scientists have considered the
hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of lack
of evidence." Science and Creationism, Page ix This quote
is a blatant lie. It is a claim by the
NAS that science has carefully considered the possibility that God created the
Universe and human DNA, etc. They have
not. That is forbidden. The
possibility that God created the Universe and human DNA is millions of times
more logical than the theory that the Universe and human DNA resulted from a
series of mindless, purposeless, directionless random mutations of DNA. Thus, what
is the "lack of evidence" they talk about in the above quote? Well, since they haven't considered the
possibility that God exists, then it must mean a "lack of evidence"
that God created anything. According
to their logic, if you assume
God does not exist; then you have "evidence" that He did not create
anything. In other words, if you assume
God does not exist; then there is a "lack of evidence" that God
created anything. Certainly
evolutionists and creation scientists have the same physical evidence from
fossils, rocks, DNA, etc. Thus, the
"lack of evidence" is not physical, it is philosophical. The philosophy of science is that God does
not exist or that He was not part of any type of creation. Thus, the "lack of evidence" really
means the "lack of evidence" (from their perspective) that God lives
or that God has done anything meaningful. What
"evidence" does the evolution establishment have that God does not
exist and God did not create anything? How can you prove that God didn't do
something? How can you
scientifically prove that God does not exist?
Yet they claim to have done that. Let us
continue the above quote: "Furthermore, the claims of
creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to
meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses." Science and Creationism, Page ix This quote
really gives away their clever definitions.
They state: "the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes ..." This can be
translated: "the claims of creation science are not naturalistic ..." In other
words, to talk about God is not acceptable because only "naturalism"
(i.e. "natural causes") is acceptable in a discussion of
"science." To qualify as a
"scientific hypotheses," only naturalism is accepted. The message
to creation scientists is clear: If creation scientists want to be accepted by
the scientific establishment, they must quit talking about God and must start
talking about "natural causes" of everything. God is not acceptable to the establishment. This quote makes this very clear to the
creation scientists. In other
words, a belief in God does "not qualify as scientific hypotheses." They are
excluding creation scientists as "scientists" because they are not
"naturalists," meaning they exclude creation scientists as
"scientists" because they believe in God. The reason? What God did cannot be "subject to
meaningful tests" and thus are not "scientific hypotheses." But is that
really the reason? Does the real concern
of the scientific establishment have anything to do with "scientific
hypothesis?" No, their real concern
is the preservation of "naturalism."
Everything else is window dressing. Creation
scientists represent the "enemy," meaning those who are trying to
expose the flaws in their assumption that all of nature was the result of a
long series of fortuitous accidents. The term
"science" must exclude any reference to God, even at the sacrifice of
truth. The Art and Science of
Brainwashing Very few
people truly understand the goal of brainwashing. Most people believe that brainwashing is
designed to repeat the same thing over and over again and suppress any opposing
viewpoint. While this
is true, it is the objective
of brainwashing which needs to be understood. Read this
next quote several times until you understand every word of it. "No one understood better than
Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to
persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which
the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring
dissonance." Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives This
"uniform pattern of public utterance" is exactly what the scientific
establishment has achieved. Any time the
word "creation science" is uttered in a scientific classroom,
students are brainwashed into an
immediate dissonant response which is manifest as an immediate episode
of laughter. "During times of universal
deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell The average
person has absolutely zero clue how powerful the media
is and how effective their carefully crafted brainwashing tactics have become. For
example, suppose the media told a lie (in other words, suppose they were on the
air). They can lie to millions of people
in an instant. They can brainwash scores
of millions of people within a few days.
They have produced a mind-numbing "uniform pattern of public
utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals
itself as a jarring dissonance" over virtually every citizen in the United
States on a large number of issues. So let's
suppose someone told the truth. The
media would not mention it. The media
would blacklist it. So what is
the person going to do, start a website?
Who is going to read that website?
There are many billions of web pages on the Internet. How many "hits" do you think this
new website of yours would get? I will
tell you - none. It will take years for
Google to put it in the top 100 sites for any common search string, and that
assumes you have hundreds of web pages to attract "hits." The sooner
a person understands these facts, the sooner they will be able to see the real
reason the theory of evolution survives.
It has nothing to do with truth, or even the quest for truth; it has to
do with the control of the media, the control of the universities, the control
of the scientific journals, and so on. The war
about evolution is not about science, it is a war about information, meaning
getting "press." |