As Bible-believing Christians, we are often accused of being science-deniers. Over the next few posts, I hope to demonstrate to you that science actually points to God, and that those who accuse us of being deniers go to unbelievable lengths to protect their absolutely unscientific religion of secular humanism. But first, here are two quotes for you to ponder:
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”-Aldous Huxley
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong.”-Richard P. Feynman, Nobel laureate
When discussing any subject with someone who is antagonistic toward the truth, it is always important to keep the discussion moored to clearly defined terms. One of the most commonly used ploys of those who seek to skirt the truth is to misuse the vocabulary of the field being debated, thereby framing the discussion in such a way that puts us on the defensive. Don't let them get away with that. So let's clearly define some important terminology.
Objectivism is the belief that objective reality exists, and that unchanging natural law exists, by which the universe works. Science does not create these laws, but scientific experimentation allows us to discover them. Science is based upon objectivism.
Relativism is the belief that truth is subjective. Anyone who adheres to relativism forfeits the ability to invoke science to support any of his beliefs, since science's foundation is objectivism.
Science reveals objective truth. The scientific method is a safeguard against bias. World-renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku stated that "Science...is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.” So, it does not matter what popular opinion happens to be. Science, when conducted according to its rules, is objective. Scientists with radically different personal beliefs should be able to conduct the same experiment and arrive at the same results.
The scientific method includes the following steps:
1.Observation and Description of Phenomenon
2.Formulation of Hypothesis to Explain Phenomenon
3.Use of Hypothesis to Make Predictions
4.Performance of Experimental Tests of the Predictions by Several Independent Experimenters and Properly Performed Experiments
Experimentation does not prove; it only verifies the hypothesis as a viable possibility. The more a hypothesis has been tested with the same results, the more confidence we have in its viability. A hypothesis has not yet been tested. It must first be formed into an experimental model. Once tested, if not disproven, the model becomes a theory. A thoroughly tested theory that has never been contradicted by a counter-example becomes a scientific law. The National Academy of Sciences defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as true." Webster's Dictionary defines a fact as "reality, actuality, truth." Theories can be disproven by a single counter-example.
Disproven hypotheses are discarded and new ones are tested (no hard feelings...it's science). Hypotheses that are not disprovable are not scientific. They may or may not be true, but they do not fall under the realm of science. Science, when applied honestly, is self-correcting, ever leading the scientist closer to the truth.
Occam's Razor is a principle that is generally used in all fields of science in the selection of hypotheses for experimentation. Occam's Razor is the principle that simpler explanations are to be preferred over more complicated explanations. Even evolutionary crusader Carl Sagan ironically said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Now, let's put Darwinian evolution up against the honest terminology. Darwinian evolution is not a fact; it is not even a theory. It might qualify as a hypothesis, but even that is shaky as it cannot be tested or observed. So, when discussing evolution vs. creation we may begin by shooting down the notion that evolution is scientific and creation is not. Of the two, only one has to turn a blind eye to evidence in order to preserve itself. (Hint: it rhymes with schmevolution.)
Darwin's work as recorded in On the Origin of Species was preceded by several others who had also documented natural selection and variation within species. Among them was Edward Blyth, who saw no problem with natural selection and variation and Biblical creation. Darwin even got into hot water over it and had to back-pedal furiously and credit his predecessors. His heavily annotated copies of Blyth's articles on variation have been discovered.
So, what we have is an anti-God movement masquerading as science. Peter Hitchens summed the situation up very nicely in a BBC interview: “The BBC teased religious leaders by asking them if they believed in the literal truth of the great Bible stories. I would like to ask BBC chiefs and the rest of our secular establishment if they believe in the literal truth of evolution. Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamentalist supporters believe is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival-that lonely frightened people wanted to expel God from the Universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.”
Some will persist though, and resort to the last line of defense for those who know that they are wrong: "But all those scientists can't be wrong." This was a major argument used by Bill Nye in the famous 2014 Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate.
Harvard educated scientist, medical doctor, author and screenwriter Michael Crichton (not even a Christian) made a 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology that devastated the argument of consensus in science.
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
...Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
Hubert Yockey (another non-Christian) also wrote that "The belief that life on Earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Finally, I want to leave you with some thoughts on the argument that Darwinian evolution has paved the way for progress, while Bible-believing Christians are an impediment. Many of science's greatest names who opened up entire fields believed in Biblical creation. (I do not hold all of these men to be true Christians. I only submit that their beliefs about creation take the Bible literally.)
- Sir Francis Bacon-established scientific method, believed in Biblical creation
- Johannes Kepler-discovered laws of planetary motion, ushering in modern era of astronomy, believed in Biblical creation
- Blaise Pascal-developed early probability theory, invented mechanical calculator, believed in Biblical creation
- Sir Isaac Newton-revolutionized the field of physics, believed in Biblical creation
- Raymond Vahan Damadian-inventor of first magnetic resonance scanning machine (MRI), believed in Biblical creation
The following are adherents to Darwinian evolution, and committed unspeakable evils in its name.
- Adolf Hitler-adhered to Darwinian evolution as the basis for anti-Semitism
- Margaret Sanger-founder of Planned Parenthood, vocal proponent of eugenics based on Darwinian evolution
- Germany's Second Reich under Kaiser Wilhelm II-committed genocide against Namibian peoples, justified on the basis of Darwinian evolution
- Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong Il, and many other infamous murderous dictators have been avowed atheists, their beliefs about evolution allowed them to dehumanize people and justify mass murder
Slavery has been abolished everywhere on Earth that Christianity has ever been the predominant religion. Equal rights under the law for every person has been established everywhere on Earth that Christianity has ever been the predominant religion. A recent video published by feminist Julie Bindel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRYzl6o0xks) featured a list of countries wherein women do not enjoy legal protection against rape by spouse. The list of countries was quickly flashed on screen with no mention of the fact that every single nation on the list was either under Sharia law or was communist (communist nations are notoriously either atheistic or only tolerant of heavily government-regulated religion). The abolition of slavery and the Jim Crow laws were brought about by Christians. Evolution was invoked to oppose both. Critics of Christianity will point to the Crusades but, the Crusades were launched in response to Islamic terrorism. Christianity has been and continues to be the beacon of truth, justice, freedom, and mercy throughout history. On the other hand, atheism and Darwinian evolution have undermined morality. If you believe in Darwinian evolution, then you believe that the only law is to survive and to reproduce with as many partners as possible. Many atheists pride themselves on being moral people, touting their ability to be good people without a god. But, what is the basis for their morality? Who are they then to say that the perverse sense of morality of the murderer, the rapist, or the pedophile are wrong? They have no basis for their so-called morality. Some will say that the basis for their morality is whatever causes the least suffering. But, that runs counter to evolution's principle of the survival of the fittest. Evolution has been used since its inception to justify many of history's most unspeakable horrors. I choose life.