|
Patterns of Intelligence
|
|
Chapter 9: About the Scientific EstablishmentIt was mentioned in another chapter that money was one of the key engines which drives the theory of evolution. This is true throughout the "scientific establishment," not just the legal community. It is also true that arrogance is another ubiquitous engine of evolution, especially at the level of the universities and large scientific organizations. While it is true that there are many, many good people, including many who strongly believe in God, who are scattered throughout the scientific establishment, including both universities and organizations, their voices are largely buried by the vast resources of those who represent the money powers. Universities, and many other organizations, are largely funded by those who have a financial interest in getting people to believe that God does not exist or that if God exists, that He is weak and ineffective. You can rest assured that God does exist. However, it is not His modus operandi to do great public miracles to get people to believe in Him!! That would interfere with people's agency. Because of money and those powerful scientists who strongly support the theory of evolution (who receive most of the money), every influential form of scientific communication is totally controlled by forces which support the theory of evolution. It is critical for the reader to understand the importance of information. The average person is somewhat gullible if they hear the same thing told to them over and over again, especially by people who are "in authority." That is wonderful when the authorities are honest and good people, but it can be a disaster when those in authority are influenced by arrogance or money. In fact, the entire evolution debate is about information. The evolution debate is certainly not about science. And those people who are the most pro-evolution are the ones with the most control of information. As a result, when a student hears anything from the major "media," be it public media, popular magazines, universities or large scientific organizations, the student can rest assured that the publication or announcement will be overwhelmingly pro-evolution. If you look at the sequence of events that led to a major scientific article which supports the theory of evolution, it is almost certain that on this path will be "bullies" in the scientific establishment who have super-egos and that the path will ultimately lead to wealthy families who handsomely profit from atheism or at least a belief in a weak God. They may finance the study or more likely they will finance the entire organization, such as a university biology department. Some students tend to assume that information from the mass media is representative of truth. This is never, never the case!!! Information, except in "internal communications" within an organization (such as a church) is always, always representative of who has the most money. Information comes from powerful people, whether they are very wealthy or they are subservient to the very wealthy. The point is that all public channels of communication are controlled, ultimately, by the very wealthy. While the Internet is not yet controlled by these same forces, they control enough of the large websites that they effectively control over 99% of what the general public reads on the Internet (not counting entertainment and social websites). Those quiet souls who love truth are very effectively silenced. Always. For example, during the time it takes someone to read a chapter from one of my two books, millions of people will hear something positive about the theory of evolution, whether from television, radio, magazines, journals, etc. However, Philip E. Johnson, who is a not-so-quiet soul, and is a highly respected lawyer, strongly supports those who believe in God. He has done much good. He has not "sold-out." He will be discussed next.
Philip E. Johnson, Attorney and ProfessorA well-known professor of law, who is also a "creation scientist" (i.e. someone who believes that God created the Universe and life on our earth), Phillip E. Johnson, commented about the fact that the theory of evolution is more of a philosophy than it is a science. In this quote he is explaining why the scientific establishment strongly supports the theory of evolution:
What Mr. Johnson is saying is that "science" (i.e. the scientific establishment in this context) is committed to the philosophy of the theory of evolution (i.e. "philosophical naturalism") and thus science must assume there is no God and therefore they must find some "plausible mechanism" (i.e. some "purposeless material mechanism") to scientifically justify their philosophy. The term "philosophical naturalism" is really nothing but a politically correct way of saying: atheism. Both naturalism and atheism can be called "pure accidentalism," meaning all creation is totally accidental. There is nothing in naturalism that includes an intelligent source for any creation, thus naturalism is no different than atheism. Note the sequence of logic in his statement: First) The scientific establishment was committed to philosophical naturalism, Second) Therefore they had to assume that no Creator or purposeful intelligence is behind our existence (i.e. 'granted that we are here as a result of purposeless material mechanisms'), Third) Then they searched for the most plausible purposeless material mechanism they could imagine to justify their beliefs, and Fourth) The most plausible theory they could find was the theory of evolution. Some people think that the scientific establishment of today believes in evolution because of the scientific "evidence" behind the theory of evolution. This is backwards from the truth. They first believed in philosophical naturalism (i.e. atheism); they second rejected God; they third sought scientific justification (i.e. they sought the "best possible evidence" for their atheism); and they fourth decided the theory of evolution was their "best possible evidence," meaning "best justification," to gain followers.
The normal scientific sequence:
Was replaced by the sequence: Study those two sequences very carefully and compare them to each other, because they explain why the theory of evolution exists!! Why do scientists reject a belief in God? In simplified terms, because of their arrogance. They reject that any being exists who is smarter than they are. After all, they are "scientists." They might ask themselves: "Does God have a PhD?" Even if the theory of evolution was total and complete nonsense (which it is) evolution is the "most plausible" and "purposeless" theory they could come up with to justify their atheism (i.e. philosophical naturalism), thus they will continue to push the theory of evolution no matter how absurd the theory of evolution is from a scientific standpoint!! True "science" should be a quest for truth, whether the truth is popular or not. Mr. Johnson is saying that what the scientific establishment is doing is not true science, meaning it is not a quest for truth. Rather, it is a quest to justify something they believed before their search even began!! In this discussion I am talking about the leaders of the evolution movement, not the followers. The followers have a wide variety of beliefs.
An Example of Their TacticsYou may remember that in the third chapter I noted that the scientific establishment changed the definition of "evolution" from macroevolution to microevolution. A person or organization with integrity would never do such an unethical thing. But now you know why they did it. They viewed the theory of evolution as their "best chance" to get their students to become atheists. In other words, they made the change in definitions because they could not find any solid evidence for the theory of evolution. The only way they could get their students to become atheists was to trick them into thinking that there was evidence for the theory of evolution!! There is no scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and there never will be. If they cannot find scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, then they will use whatever tactic is necessary to get their students to believe in evolution. They are not scientists, they are missionaries without integrity. That is why the theory of evolution can be total scientific nonsense and yet the scientific establishment will continue to pretend it has scientific evidence to support it!! The point is that the theory of evolution is a religion!! A religion is supported independent of evidence. In other words, if the proponents of the theory of evolution were to simply say: "the theory of evolution is a religion" then scientific evidence would be irrelevant because a religion requires no scientific evidence. But they do not claim evolution is a religion, they claim evolution is a science. With this claim, they need valid, verifiable scientific evidence. But they don't have any scientific evidence so they try to fabricate the evidence with deceptive definitions, bogus science, etc. etc. A person cannot separate the theory of evolution from atheism because they are so intertwined. People who are atheists flock to the theory of evolution and people who support the theory of evolution frequently are atheists or they become atheists or as a minimum, people who believe in the theory of evolution do not believe many of the key parts of the Bible and in fact may not therefore believe any of the Bible. They may even quit going to church. In other words, if we talk about "faith" (i.e. faith in God), believing in the theory of evolution can severely damage a person's "faith in God." Just like many churches have missionaries, the religion of evolution also has its evangelists. Those who believe both in God and evolution are missing the point. Evolution exists to convert them into atheists!! That is a warning. Many people believe that strong scientific evidence is what drove Darwin, and modern day evolutionists, to support the theory of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth!! The theory of evolution is not about science, it is about religion. This is why the scientific "evidence" for the theory of evolution can be nothing but "smoke and mirrors," but many people will continue to believe in, and push, the theory of evolution. That is also why it is such a waste of time to debate evolutionists. They are not looking for the truth, they are looking for "justification." They couldn't care less about the mathematics of evolution or the science of evolution because evolution is first and foremost a religion. Darwin himself was well-known to be an atheist and strongly rejected any attempt to even integrate any mention of God with the theory of evolution. In other words, Darwin flatly refused to consider that God "helped" evolution along. He wanted his theory to have nothing to do with a belief in God!! For a further discussion of Darwin's life and atheism see the book: The Darwin Myth - The Life and Times of Charles Darwin, by Benjamin Wiker, PhD
More Tactics of the Scientific EstablishmentNow that we understand the real reason the scientific establishment couldn't care less about scientific evidence, let us look at more of their tactics to get converts. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an official organization of the scientific establishment. It is totally pro-evolution and mocks anyone who believes in God. Here is a typical quote from one of their booklets about those who believe in God:
What is most interesting about this quote is that they accuse people who believe in God of doing exactly what they are doing!! They are saying that the beliefs in God are not driven by evidence and that they are seeking justification "to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible." This is incredible because that is exactly what they are doing!! Looking through a telescope and seeing many hundreds of billions of galaxies should be considered evidence for the existence of God!! But it is not considered evidence by the scientific establishment. Another strong evidence for the existence of God is the incomprehensible morphing of the embryo algorithms. But contemplating the sophistication and complexity of DNA is not considered evidence for the existence of God to the scientific establishment. The establishment believes that the existence of galaxies is evidence of a gigantic accidental explosion (i.e. a Big Bang) and that the existence of human DNA is the result of a long series of accidental mutations!! How absurd!! They use their vivid imaginations to visualize how random explosions and random accidents could have created our Universe and human DNA. Then they claim that they have "proven" that their fairy tales are true science. This is not science, this is story telling. Essentially, what the above quote is saying is that those who believe in God cannot be taken seriously because they cannot prove that God exists. This is the key: the only way that creation scientists would be "accepted" as "scientists" is if the creation scientists could create a Universe!! Otherwise, creation scientists are "reversing the scientific process." Note that evolutionists do not have to create a Universe to be "accepted," only creation scientists have to create a Universe to be "accepted!!" This is a double standard. The NAS scientists cannot even visit another galaxy, much less create a Universe. And even if they could visit another galaxy, and even if they could travel at the speed of light, it would take them 100,000 years to fly across a typical galaxy (which is yet another thing they cannot do). Yet these people have the unmitigated gall to claim they have proven that God does not exist because those who believe in God cannot create a Universe!! The scientific establishment lives in an imaginary world where they are the kings. Have they proven the Big Bang ever happened? According to their own rules they must check the Big Bang theory "through observation and experimentation" before they will allow themselves to believe in the Big Bang. They have not done that, yet they claim there is scientific proof that the Big Bang not only happened, but that it happened by an accidental explosion!! Have scientists created life from non-life? No!! Yet they claim the "first living cell" is a proven scientific fact even though they cannot create a living cell which does not need glucose and has "simple DNA" and could have come to life by purely accidental means. Have scientists ever witnessed a new species, with new genetic material, form by random mutations of nucleotides? No, but they can't say enough about how they have "proven" the theory of evolution is true. In fact, they have to use blatant deception, including the use of "tricky" definitions, to convince their students that there is "evidence" for the theory of evolution.
More Lies and DeceitsHere is another quote from the same NAS booklet:
First of all, the quote is a lie. Many science teachers at all levels of education do not teach or support the theory of evolution. While most University professors support the theory of evolution, to a significant degree they do so in order to avoid being fired. In large universities, professors who publicly support creation science are at risk of being fired. Some of them have been fired!! Universities do not want to lose their funding sources or their atheism. They care more about money than they care about truth. The quote above is nothing but a "self-fulfilling" prophesy because any person who preaches creationism at a major university is subject to being fired and those who preach the theory of evolution are adorned with titles and publications!! Their glory is self-anointed. They anoint each other and then claim that only anointed people should be considered "scientists." An example is that in order to get published in a scientific journal you must profess, in your article, a profound belief in evolution. Well, not quite, but close. The vast, vast majority of biology papers which are published, and which mention evolution, are strongly pro-evolution!!
Thus, they have created a self-fulfilling set of standards: They do all of these things and then claim that scientists (i.e. their journals) have concluded: "that evolution - and only evolution - should be taught in science classes because it is the only scientific explanation for why the universe is the way it is today." They have created an artificial environment, then they claim that the environment is "proof" of evolution!! They ridicule anyone who believes that God is a "scientific explanation" for the existence of the Universe. It is very true that "creationists" cannot create a Universe by design; nor can they design the DNA of a complex species. However, it is equally true that "evolutionists" cannot create a Universe by using an accidental Big Bang; nor can they create complex, new DNA by random mutations of nucleotides, starting with a "first living cell" which did not have access to glucose!! The debate should be a "tie" at best, but these people do not think it should be a tie, they think they should win because they have anointed themselves "scientists" and they then use their power to crush anyone who disagrees with them. They claim that the creationists are not scientists, but that they are scientists!! In reality the theory of evolution is nothing but a religion (i.e. atheism). These same self-anointed scientists also claim that religion should not be taught in school. Have they proven with experiments that God does not exist or that an accidental Big Bang did happen? No, then evolution is a religion. They do not want the "religion of God" to be taught in the public schools; rather they want the "religion of atheism," called evolution, to be exclusively taught in the public schools. Any federal judge who cannot see that the theory of evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity needs to find a different profession. All of the claims of the scientific establishment are a "stacked deck," meaning they are double standards and self-fulfilling prophesies. They control what is in journals; then they say that what is in the journals is "scientific evidence," even if it has never been replicated in a lab. It is nonsense. I have personally seen their total disregard for truth in many theoretical mathematics journals and in many theoretical physics journals, not to mention biology journals. For example, in 1925 a Nobel Prize winner in physics, Albert Michelson, proved the existence of "ether" or "aether." This was not a popular discovery because Einstein supported a competing theory called the "photon" theory. Michelson's discovery was never published even though he had been a Nobel Prize winner years earlier!! I will give you another example. Roland De Witte made an incredible discovery when he was able to detect the motion of our earth in space (towards the constellation Leo) by using electrical currents through telephone wires!! He was never published, not even in his home country of Belgium. I could give many, many more examples of brilliant discoveries which were buried either because the discoveries were not acceptable to those who contribute money to large universities or because the discovery would cut into the status of the scientific establishment. What is interesting is that scientists are shocked by the persecution of Galileo, Copernicus and many others, then they do exactly the same thing within their realm of authority!! Only it is not the Pope who is dishing out the punishment to scientists, it is the scientific establishment!! Censorship of truth is the defining characteristic of the modern self-anointed "scientific" establishment. I have seen this censorship over and over and over again as I have communicated with other scientists who should have been published but were not. Let me say it again: censorship of truth is the defining characteristic of the modern self-anointed "scientific" establishment. Truth should be "the way things are." But "the way things are" is irrelevant to science. Only papers which are "popular" (meaning the theories which justify philosophical naturalism or some other theory they like) are published. Truth is left outside looking through the window. The NAS booklet is typical of scientific journals, it only teaches "popular" theories. The NAS booklet is simply a wall-to-wall insult of anyone who believes in God. They belittle anyone who does not worship philosophical naturalism. Power almost always leads a person to believe that they are important. And an "establishment" is led by people with great power who frequently lust for unlimited status. In saying all of this I want to make it very clear that I am criticizing an "establishment," not individual teachers of science. What teachers teach is what they are told to teach. I am not in any way criticizing any teacher or any student. According to the NAS, people who believe in God "reverse the scientific process" and thus these people should be ostracized by their peers because people who believe in God are inferior beings compared to "true scientists" who manipulate and suppress the truth, lie and engage in double-standards in order to justify philosophical naturalism. Clearly, anyone who believes the nonsense of the NAS needs to step back and take a long hard look at what is really going on in science today!! "Truth" should be the goal of science, even if the "truth" leads people to believe in God. But "truth" is not what the scientific establishment wants. They want their students to believe in a system of thought which eliminates God as competition to their self-glorification. Never mind that the "system of thought" is scientific nonsense. Many of the things in the NAS booklet, and many, many other such documents, are pure self-justifying glorification of scientists. But scientists go far beyond imaginary self-indulgent delusions to defend their position; they are also guilty of outright fraud. The next section will give a very clear example of how the scientific establishment commits outright fraud in order to ridicule those who believe in God. They do this by intentionally manipulating scientific data.
An Example of Bogus ScienceAs an example of bogus science, scientists love to date human bones to be older than when Adam and Eve were alive. The skeleton of the Kennewick man, for example, which was discovered in Kennewick, Washington, was dated to be 9,000 years old. That is about 3,000 years prior to the "fall" of Adam and Eve; which is when death was introduced on this planet. The problem with the dating of Kennewick man was not the equipment, but it was the many factors involved in the dating which were intentionally not taken into account. Examples would be the fact that his skeleton was found next to a very large river plus most of the skeleton was in a shallow grave. Radiometric dating does not take these massively significant issues into account. For example, water (e.g. from a river, flood or from rain) leaches radioactive elements out of cells which makes radiometric dating almost worthless. But water is not the only problem ignored by radiometric dating. Heat can cause far greater problems getting accurate dates. Both water and heat would have made the dating of Kennewick man grossly inaccurate. Most animals, when they die, are not buried and their bones may dry out, fossilize and sit in the sun for many decades or many centuries. Dating these bones would yield grossly inaccurate dates. But these, and other issues, are totally ignored by the scientific establishment so that they will get the answers they want. They want to make a scientific mockery of the Bible. But they do not disprove the Bible. What they do is expose their complete lack of any crumb of an interest in truth. In other words, they prove beyond any doubt that their interest is in deceiving students and that they have zero interest in finding any truth. The truth is that the dating of Kennewick man was a pure scientific deception. He probably died less than 200 years before he was discovered. But researchers refuse to do honest experiments that would tell us what we need to know to make an accurate estimate of when he died. Note that they claimed he died before the flood of Noah. If the flood of Noah really happened (as all four books of scripture claim did happen) then many animals would have died before the flood and during the flood. Their bones could have soaked in water for many months or years after the flood started. Current dating techniques do not take these very critical issues into account! In fact, any time scientists "date" a fossil to be more than 6,000 years old (which is when Adam and Eve fell) you know that they have intentionally ignored the flood and a whole host of other issues!! While the Kennewick man was claimed to have lived before the flood, in fact he lived long after the flood. Scientists also ignore the power of God. Their dating of geological formations assume there is no God. But God has the power to create a planet, move the tectonic plates, create valleys, deserts, mountains, etc. in a few thousand years or even a few days if you want to get technical.
Chapter 10: The Nail in the Coffin of Evolution - Part 1
|