August 22, 2007

Evolutionists Oppose Freedom of Thought

by Donald G. Mashburn

Al Gore’s recent rants that “the debate is over” on global warming reminds one of the efforts of evolutionists to cut off debate and search for scientific answers on the many deficiencies of evolutionism.

In their complaints about a book published that explained the geology of the Grand Canyon in terms of Creation beliefs, a group of scientists complained that the book “aggressively attacks modern science and broadly accepted interpretations.” Translation: Those who disagree with evolutionism should be silenced, and the public “protected” from their dissenting views. The truth is, there is no “modern science” that explains evolution and its mythical claims of “everything from nothing” – all by random events or accidents.

Sounds somewhat like Gore’s insistence that everybody fall in and march to his cadence on global swarming. The global warming greenies, like evolutionists, fear public discussion of, and search for, the truth.

Evolutionists’ efforts are not restricted to book banning at national parks. For decades, they have waged a widespread, insidiously intolerant effort opposing any scientific discussion of the real world that exposes the weak underpinning of evolutionism.

Stifling of healthy discussion of evolutionism’s shortcomings takes many forms. One college professor warned his students that any deviation from the evolution point of view in his class would result in a failing grade.

Another form is the incessant effort of the National Academy of Science (NAS) to brainwash and intimidate public school teachers to teach evolution as the only acceptable explanation for the world around us and the life inhabiting it.

The NAS’s evangelistic efforts to enlist the help of schoolteachers and the media are about beliefs – for evolution is about beliefs – not science.

Defending the NAS campaign, one pro-evolution columnist wrote, “It is necessary to champion a settled scientific principle against bullying Christian fundamentalists. ...”

“Settled scientific principle?” Not for those who can’t swallow the “just so” stories of life beginning, inexplicably, in wholly unscientific, primordial ooze or “soup” billions of years back. Not for those willing to search for scientific truth, using real science, and let the search lead to wherever truth takes it.

Nor is evolutionism a “settled” scientific principle for those who know that the fossil record puts the lie to claims of evolution. Or those who know the laws of thermodynamics prove that organic life cannot occur “spontaneously” or “randomly” from inorganic matter.

Honest – using the term loosely – evolutionists have admitted that their beliefs take precedence over the scientific search for truth. And their beliefs require some imagination, as admitted by N. Takahata, when he wrote, “[O]bjective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

Imagination isn’t science, yet evolutionists deride those who question the lack of scientific studies supporting evolutionism. Some researchers are using science instead of imagination. For example, Los Alamos National Laboratory geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner’s studies of the earth’s crust undercut a key evolutionist “Old Earth” assumption of uniformity in radioactive decay.

Also, based on studies of the diffusion of helium diffusion through granite, Dr. Russell Humphreys, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, has concluded that the helium content of granite minerals shows the earth can’t be billions of years old.

More scientists now believe in a relatively “young” earth. And their credentials equal, and in many cases exceed, those of the doctrinaires of evolution. These are the trained scientists that evolutionists want to silence.

Moreover, evolution fails the “free thought” test. One’s not allowed to wonder, among evolutionists, why evolution seems simply to have stopped by the time of “modern” man. Credible transitional forms are missing. No credible evidence exists that evolution has been observed or has occurred, ever.

Yet evolutionists try to cow scientists into believing evolutionism’s “just so” stories, instead of using their God-given brains to seek the truth wherever original thought and real science leads.

Believing in a Divine Creator is straightforward compared with the huge leap of faith required to believe in evolution. And faith in God frees up the mind to really think. The kind of free, objective thought that evolutionists want to ban.


Atheistic Deperation

by Thomas E. Brewton

Atheists thought that God really was dead. French revolutionary philosophers and the socialist theoreticians who followed them in the early 1800s were captured by what British socialist Graham Wallas called the liberal fallacy: the self-absorbed assumption that whatever their reasoning told them had, by definition, to be the truth and, furthermore, that everyone else on earth would naturally agree with their conclusions.

It is a form of tunnel vision that ignores all factors other than what interests liberals.

We see this today in the prescriptions of liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats. They are confident that, because they abhor war, so, too, does Al Queda. Because liberals are willing to relinquish our national sovereignty to the UN, confident that every dispute can be resolved by rational discussion, they assume Islamic jihadists are wired the same way.

At the apogee of atheistic materialism, in the 1830s, Auguste Comte's well-intentioned expectation was that all the world would quickly recognize the superiority of his Positivistic philosophy and its Religion of Humanity. People from the rest of Europe, from America, and from Asia, he assumed, would all come to sit worshipfully at his feet to learn the proper new system of socialist government and its canon of materialistic ethics.

Central to the process, of course, would be accepting the belief that there is no God other than human reason and that the proper object of worship is Man in the abstract, Humanity. To the horror of liberal-Progressive-socialists, the world did give Comte and his followers a respectful and lengthy hearing, but didn't like what ensued – the slaughter of tens of millions of human beings by 20th century atheists in the Soviet Union, National Socialist Germany, Red China, and elsewhere.

Today, with Christianity rebounding strongly in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and more than holding its own in the United States, the New York Times, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, et al have become desperate to reassert the superiority of their own minds. For an excellent discussion of that aspect, read Joseph Bottum's "Why Atheism Is Selling ... Books" on the First Things website (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=825).

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776, http://www.thomasbrewton.com.