Consider this:
The thinking inherent in the evolutionary mindset illustrated by the by the following statement by Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and leading evolution promoter. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation, regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow com-pel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that pro-duce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifyting to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin is typical of many evolutionary propagandists. Another good example is the National Academy of Science (NAS) in the USA, which recently produced a guidebook for U.S. public school teachers, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. Of those, 72.2 percent were overtly atheistic, 20.8 percent were agnostic, and only 7.0 per-cent believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. The unbelief is far higher than the percent-age among scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population. Commenting on the self-professed religious neutrality of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science and the NAS, the surveyors comment:
NAS President Bruce Alberts said: ?There are many outstanding members of this academy who are very reli-gious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.? Our research suggests otherwise.
This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis for modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. Dr. Stanley Jaki has documented how the scien-tific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe. An orderly universe makes perfect sense if it was made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no Creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? No wonder that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.
C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident, too. If so, then all our thought pro-cesses are mere accidents ? the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the mate-rialists? and astronomers? as well as for anyone else?s. But if their thoughts ? i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy ? are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct ac-count of all the other accidents.
Dr. Jonothan Sarfati
The thinking inherent in the evolutionary mindset illustrated by the by the following statement by Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and leading evolution promoter. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation, regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow com-pel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that pro-duce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifyting to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin is typical of many evolutionary propagandists. Another good example is the National Academy of Science (NAS) in the USA, which recently produced a guidebook for U.S. public school teachers, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. Of those, 72.2 percent were overtly atheistic, 20.8 percent were agnostic, and only 7.0 per-cent believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. The unbelief is far higher than the percent-age among scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population. Commenting on the self-professed religious neutrality of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science and the NAS, the surveyors comment:
NAS President Bruce Alberts said: ?There are many outstanding members of this academy who are very reli-gious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.? Our research suggests otherwise.
This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis for modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. Dr. Stanley Jaki has documented how the scien-tific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe. An orderly universe makes perfect sense if it was made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no Creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? No wonder that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.
C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of man was an accident, too. If so, then all our thought pro-cesses are mere accidents ? the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the mate-rialists? and astronomers? as well as for anyone else?s. But if their thoughts ? i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy ? are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct ac-count of all the other accidents.
Dr. Jonothan Sarfati
Facebook
Twitter